Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: October 8, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2007, City Council Meeting, July 25, 2007, Work Session, August 13, 2007, Work Session, August 15, 2007, Work Session, and September 10, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.July 23, 2007, City Council Meeting B.July 25, 2007, Work Session C.August 13, 2007, Work Session D.August 15, 2007, Work Session E.September 10, 2007, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071008\S0710082A.doc ATTACHMENT A Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 23, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. Joe Collins , PO Box 24411, reiterated his allegations that there was a drug dealer living in his condominium complex and his feeling that the police were not listening to him. Greg Bryant , 2173 Alder Street, director of the Tango Center, said an item the council would be voting on later in the meeting represented to him an “old way of doing business” which was that buildings were disposable and “almost any excuse was found to dispose of them.” He believed that the demand for land was high in many areas of the country and it was possible for cities to accumulate “enough private capital to … convince government officials to then kick out existing owners” so that redevelopment could occur. He asserted that it had become such a normal way of business that it had become subsidized. He opined that destroying a building did not equate with revitalization. He said the things that people perceived as urban blight were things that made them uncomfortable and not the buildings. He noted that there were many old buildings in Europe and attributed this to the care that had gone into them. He felt the use of public money to subsidize the replacement of existing buildings with more expensive buildings was inappropriate. Teri McComb , 7 Monroe Street, stated that she had rented a community garden plot for two years. She had been shocked to find out how many people had multiple plots. She said she made a call to Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Chris Girard and he provided information regarding the program. She related that Mr. Girard did not see anything wrong with a person having more than one plot. However, she was concerned because there now was a lottery for garden plots and 129 families had been turned away in the last one, though 50 more plots had been created. Park Operations Manager Kevin Finney had called her as well. She discussed with him the possibility that Mr. Girard was not able to be impartial in his dispensation of garden plots. She noted that she had been approached by other gardeners that had multiple plots after two letters written by her had been published in The Register-Guard. They had stressed to her their need for extra garden plots, one of them indicating that she used a plot for her commercial landscaping business. She was disappointed that nothing had changed. rd Bob Dougherty , 479 East 53 Avenue, representing the Masonic Lodge, thanked the council for the opportunity to address the tailgating issue. He applauded Eugene Police Department (EPD) Captain Pete Kerns for coordinating all of the activities around the University of Oregon and the non-profit agencies on MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting game days. He related that the non-profit agency customers were the same customers that parked in the Autzen Stadium parking lot, but they felt like second class citizens because they either could not afford to park there or there was not enough room for them. He averred that those customers deserved an opportunity to tailgate as well. He said they provided the University with spaces several years earlier so they could expand their lot. He had hoped that they would all be treated the same. He supported the sign-up procedure. He underscored that they monitored very closely all of the activities that went on in their lot. He related that he provided fliers outlining rules for behavior at every game. He stated that the Masonic Lodge had generated no calls for the EPD during last year’s season. th George Brown , 60 West 17 Avenue, owner of the Kiva Grocery Store, stated that he had run his business in the downtown area for 37 years. He had studied the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) forms thoroughly. He asserted that there were some “major problems,” in that KWG Development Partners and Beam Development had not presented a revised proposal to the City, the slum and blight determination had not been completed, and that there was no substandard housing in the downtown area. He agreed that the two pits represented blight but he did not see blight in other areas. He pointed out that the downtown area had a dense concentration of businesses and restaurants. He disagreed with a characteriza- tion of the downtown as an area with a high poverty rate. He said the tables were not included in Schedule C for a high commercial vacancy rate, low household income, and high crime rates. He felt it was also problematic because the review related to historic preservation was not included in the application. He opposed razing the Shaw-Med/Tango Center building and replacing it with a large grocery store. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, said he was glad to see people in the community going through the application for urban renewal funds and finding problems with it early in the process. He opined that there was “real involvement” and “fake involvement.” He declared that fake involvement was coached by staff and facilitators. He believed that “real involvement” would lead to more adaptive reuse of existing structures. He reiterated his opposition to the proposed University of Oregon basketball arena. He supported retaining Mac Court. He called that proposed arena a “land acquisition scheme.” David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, said he hoped the record could remain open on the application for Section 108 money. He asserted that the application was incomplete. He felt it was difficult to follow some of the arguments staff presented to satisfy the criteria. He agreed that block grant funds had been used for many “wonderful things,” but he felt using the money for the present project was inappropriate. He cited the criterion related to job creation, which required that 51 percent of the jobs be created for low-income individuals. He said to do this the City would have to come from a census tract with a 70 percent poverty rate. He asserted that such a tract did not exist in Eugene and that criterion could be “thrown out.” He noted that the downtown district needed to be considered an “empowerment zone or enterprise community” and he was unable to determine whether that was the case. He said if it was not the case, the City could not apply for the money. He recited the following from the language: “[the City] could do the 51 percent if it [did] not include any portion of the central business district as this term was used in the most recent census of retail trade unless the track has a poverty rate of at least 30 percent as determined by the most recently available decennial census information.” He asserted that the poverty rate of all of the census tracts combined was 27 percent and the City did not meet the criteria; the application was incomplete. He urged the council not to move forward on this at this time. Beth Stegall , 1514 Lincoln Street, wished to speak about the Charnel-Mulligan Park. She said the park currently needed general upgrades and some “TLC.” She averred that it had been several years since the park received much-needed maintenance. She had joined the neighborhood association and worked with City representatives. She asked that the City consider the following in the 2008 parks budget: a new play structure, new sand, some new benches, vegetation, trees, and a new park sign. She noted that this was not MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting much for a park that was well-used. She felt fortunate to live in Eugene, adding that nice parks add economic value to the city. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She asked for a copy of the rules and regulations governing the community gardens for council review. City Manager Dennis Taylor agreed to provide a copy of the rules and also information on where the program was and where it was heading. Councilor Pryor was also interested in how the community garden program was being administered in terms of garden spaces. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the people who testified. She thought it was good news that a lot of people wanted to grow their own food. She asked that the response from the City Manager include how many acres were currently in the program, how much acreage had been added since the advent of the program, and whether there were potential sites that would be appropriate for garden spaces. Regarding the Charnel-Mulligan Park, Councilor Bettman thought the parks maintenance issue was addressed in a “squeaky wheel … way.” She asked if there was an actual maintenance program so that when play structures started to age they were being addressed. Councilor Zelenka did not understand why people would be allowed multiple garden plots if there were 126 people on a waiting list. It seemed to him if there were such a large number of people being turned away, it would be prudent to add to the available garden land and expand the program. Councilor Clark also thanked everyone who testified. He supported expansion of the community gardens. He noted that a couple of the teachers at North Eugene High School had a program in mind to create a community garden at the high school and integrate it with some school programs. They had given a presentation to the Santa Clara Community Organization. He thought the City could look into partnering with the school districts to do this type of thing, among options. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone who testified. She wished to especially thank Mr. Bryant and Mr. Brown for contributing to the downtown “rather than contributing to blight.” As for community gardens, she suggested that some dirt be dumped into the “Sears pit” to make it into a “sunken garden.” Mayor Piercy expressed interest in furthering the community gardens program. She also requested that Mr. Brown submit his comments in writing given that his time expired before he was done speaking. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the interest in upgrading Charnel-Mulligan Park and indicated her support for it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - May 14, 2007, Work Session - May 23, 2007, Work Session - May 29, 2007, Work Session - May 30, 2007, Work Session - June 11, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Appointment of Civilian Review Board Representative to Police Commission Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman stated that she had previously submitted corrections to the minutes. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Councilor Taylor asked to read a minutes correction into the record. She called it a misrepresentation of what she had said. She asserted that staff members could “change their mind about what they said after a meeting happened.” She was uncertain what the process was. Mayor Piercy asked if Councilor Taylor wanted to pull the minutes. Councilor Taylor indicated that she did not wish to pull the minutes. She wanted to offer the following correction to the minutes of the City Council Work Session held on May 14, 2007: ? Page 8, paragraph 3: “Ms. Taylor surmised that the project could be very nearly done if the process had not been discontinued. Mr. Braud clarified that construction would have begun but would not have been completed at this point been done about this time.” Mayor Piercy deemed the correction, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Resolution 4914 Authorizing Execution of a HUD Section 108 Loan Contract in the Amount of $7,895,000 and Notes in the Amount of $7,895,000 City Manager Dennis Taylor asked Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, Sue Cutsogeorge, to briefly review the proposed resolution. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the resolution would allow the City to authorize execution of a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 108 loan contract. She recounted that the City had been awarded a $2 million Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant from HUD and the 108 loan program had to be used in conjunction with the grant. She recalled that the council placed two conditions on the authorization, one of which was to hold a public hearing. Two people testified at the public hearing and three submitted comments via email. She noted the testimony in regard to the program that had been provided during the Public Forum section of the meeting. She said the other condition that the council had placed on the HUD 108 loan was that the council pass a resolution that the loan had to be used for a specific project. She stated that the specific project for the loan was acquisition of five properties for MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting the West Broadway Redevelopment Project. She indicated that it was anticipated the loan would be repaid primarily from downtown urban renewal funds and it was also possible that proceeds from the sale of the properties to the developers could be a source of repayment depending on the final details of the agreements between the City and the developers. She said HUD required that the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds be placed as security for the borrowing, but it was not anticipated that those funds would be used because the City’s downtown urban renewal district had sufficient financial capacity to repay it. She noted that the next agenda item would allow the urban renewal district to make the payments on the HUD loan. Councilor Bettman asked if the BEDI grant and HUD Section 108 loan money could be used to address other issues, such as “the crisis… brewing in the Trainsong neighborhood.” Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the money was area specific and could not be used outside of the downtown district. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud explained that the BEDI applica- tion was submitted in May 2005, based on certain criteria. Councilor Bettman interjected that she recalled being told in the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) that there were a lot of options for spending the money. Mr. Braud responded that the application could have been for a number of projects but the direction given was to move forward for the BEDI application within the two urban renewal districts. Councilor Bettman recalled that an action had been taken but she had felt it was premature and would authorize application of the funds “before we have any information of what that does.” Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that she believed Councilor Bettman was referring to the ordinance that set up the HUD Section 108 revenue bonds. Councilor Bettman asked what specific action had tied it to the downtown district. Mr. Braud recounted that the CCIGR directed staff to move forward with the grant application and they submitted a concept of utilizing the grant application for the two downtown urban renewal districts. He underscored that this was the direction staff received. Councilor Bettman asked if Mr. Braud was indicating that staff received direction from the CCIGR to submit the application for downtown. Mr. Braud reiterated that he was “confident” that they had gone before the CCIGR with the concept and had received direction to proceed. Councilor Bettman said she wanted to see documentation. She believed that the CCIGR had been informed that the decisions had not been made as to how the money would be spent. Councilor Bettman noted that one of the people who testified during the Public Forum alleged that there was an issue with the premise on which the application had been based. She did not believe that the application stated that the jobs would be given to individuals with a low income. She said because the 30 percent threshold for poverty had not been reached, the application did not actually qualify. Mr. Braud called this an important clarification. He clarified that traditionally the national objective of the low-income job benefit was that it had to be demonstrated that 51 percent of the jobs generated were filled by people with low or moderate incomes. He said there were some exceptions. He explained that if a census tract met the 30 percent threshold, then all of the jobs created by the project could be presumed to be filled by persons of low or moderate income and therefore it would not be required that everyone’s income be documented in the jobs that were created. Otherwise, he said, the City would have to document that the 51 percent low income benefit test. He stated that the majority of the 200-plus economic development projects in the business development fund had been required to provide such documentation. He reiterated that the City did not MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting necessarily have to get income data from all of the jobs created because HUD allowed the presumption that jobs would be filled by people at the low or moderate income level. He stressed that the difference lay in that less documentation was required if the money was being utilized in an income-eligible census tract and this did not mean the national objective was not being met. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Resolu- tion 4914 authorizing execution of a HUD Section 108 loan contract in the amount of $7,895,000 and notes in the amount of $7,895,000. Councilor Zelenka asked for an explanation of the goals behind the Section 108 loan and the BEDI grant. Mr. Braud replied that the purpose of the block grant program included affordable housing, social services, economic development, elimination of blight, and job creation. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud affirmed that it was only necessary to meet one of the criteria. Councilor Zelenka asked what the formula was for job creation. Mr. Braud responded that the public benefit under the economic development criterion was one job per $35,000 of CDBG/HUD assistance. He said this would require that the project create approximately 283 jobs. He related that the current estimate was that approximately 1,600 jobs would be created, though it was a number they had been given by the developers. He said staff had based its number on full time equivalent (FTE) employees and on the project, which estimated FTE at 600. This meant that just over 300 would need to be filled by people with low or moderate incomes. He stressed that the City would have to document all of the jobs created, just as it was required to do for all of its economic development projects. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen if the City did not meet the requirements. Mr. Braud said the City would have to monitor the project and provide findings. He stated that with a loan project the City would have the ability to “call the loan” and require the business to pay in order to get the money back as quickly as possible. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud affirmed that he believed the loan application was accurate. He noted that staff had been through a few previous drafts of the application and had incorporated feedback from HUD in the final draft. He did not think the City had any issues regarding the national objective in the low or moderate income benefit category or the slums and blight category. He said staff had completed the environmental review process where it looked at historic preservation issues, environmental condition issues, and the City had conducted the necessary public hearing. He stated that the City had closely followed the required steps. He underscored that the City’s experience with HUD had been that the requirements were rigorous and if the City did not meet them HUD would not approve the application. Councilor Zelenka observed that the environmental assessment portion of the application was approximately 16 pages long. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud affirmed that HUD had seen an initial draft, made comments which then were incorporated into the final draft, and then would make the final determination on the application. He reiterated that the City would be responsible for addressing the findings made in the loan application. Councilor Zelenka asked if the application papers were public documents on which the public could comment. Mr. Braud replied that HUD did not have a public comment process, as that was done on the local level. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud confirmed that any material changes to what was proposed would be brought back to the council. Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to review the steps the City would have to go through. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that there were four steps: 1) the City would have to amend the urban renewal plan to provide sufficient capacity to undertake the loan amount; 2) the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) would bring its recommendations to the council on September 19; 3) the City and the Urban Renewal Agency would have to approve supplemental budgets to spend the money; and 4) the Urban Renewal Plan Section 700 required that any project greater than $250,000 would have to be separately approved by the Urban Renewal Board. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge affirmed that the supplemen- tal budget process would include a required public hearing. Councilor Zelenka asked how many public hearings the WBAC process included. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the WBAC was holding two hearings. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that as far as staff was concerned, the application was complete; but it would not be known for certain until HUD had received it and reviewed it. Councilor Bettman had surmised that there would be a final application based on what the final development was going to look like. She assumed the final application would be submitted after the final development agreement “materialized.” She declared that a lot of the numbers were “complete and utter projections.” Mr. Braud said if the City ended up doing something different than it proposed to HUD the City would have to go back to HUD to amend the application, which meant that it would have to go back before the council to be amended. He underscored that the trigger in this case was the options on the properties. He stated that the City was trying to “put this tool in place in a timely manner” so that when the City was required potentially to act on some of the properties, the City would have the tool available and approved. Councilor Bettman asserted that staff was using the conceptual development as the justification for the criteria in the federal application. She did not believe the City would create jobs by purchasing the options on the properties. She declared that staff was basing the justification of the criteria on the “ultimate final agreement.” She called this “complete conjecture.” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to postpone approval of the reso- lution until September when the final application could be reviewed based on the final de- velopment agreement. Councilor Taylor averred that it would make sense to postpone approval of the resolution. Councilor Zelenka stated that his original motion to create the WBAC and extend the process sought to have staff put everything in place so when the City was at the point at which a development agreement could be made with the developers, everything would be in place and ready to move forward. He said at that point, they would decide whether to move forward or not. He stressed that the council could choose not to trigger any of the next steps if it saw fit to do so; there was more opportunity for public input and more opportunity for the council to say no if necessary. Councilor Bettman said the information on the draft application had become available to the public three days prior to the close of public comments. She averred that Councilor Zelenka’s approach of getting all of the ducks in a row and then allowing the council to say yes or no down the road was “good if [one was] the head of a corporation.” She countered that the council was spending taxpayer money and she did not believe MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting the public had anything definitive to testify about. She asserted that in this case “the process was so egregious” that the application had not become available in a timely manner. She said there was a lot of material in the application that raised questions for her. She had been surprised to see how many housing units were in the area and she questioned how many of those housing units would be demolished and how they were being accounted for. She had questions about the data related to jobs as well. Councilor Clark thanked staff for all of the hard work on this project. He likened the process to a family deciding to make a major purchase; the first step would be a determination of how much could be borrowed and how much could be afforded. He felt the resolution was an appropriate decision to make at this time. Councilor Taylor asked staff whether the number of jobs created factored in the number of jobs “that were going to be destroyed.” She asserted that there would be jobs that would not be there anymore. Mr. Braud replied that staff was working with the WBAC and one of the five things the committee was working on was a business relocation plan, in accordance with HUD requirements. He noted that the urban renewal district also had relocation provisions within the urban renewal plan. He said the legitimate assumption was that there would be opportunities for those businesses to be taken care of by relocation, relocation benefits, or by being incorporated into the project. He did not think it was fair to assume that all of the jobs or even “some or any of those jobs” would be lost because the collective effort was trying to not let that happen. Councilor Taylor disagreed. She thought jobs would definitely be lost. She asked if, when talking about jobs for people with low incomes, the jobs were anticipated to pay more than the people were currently making. Mr. Braud replied that the target for block grant assistance had always been a low-income job benefit. He said they were targeting entry level jobs that were available to people who need employment the most. Councilor Taylor surmised that staff was assuming the businesses that were downtown could “go some other place and continue to exist.” Mr. Braud assured Councilor Taylor that the City had worked with other businesses that had to relocate as a result of previous projects and had provided relocation assistance to them. He said the process had included hiring a consultant who served as an unbiased facilitator who helped to determine what the relocation needs were and what kind of benefits were needed to do those things. Councilor Zelenka said jobs that were lost were only lost if they did not become relocated. He anticipated that all of the non-profits and businesses would be relocated. He stressed that this was why the WBAC was supposed to create a transition plan. He believed the resolution was a prudent move. Councilor Bettman opined that the City was offering over $50 million to a project developer. She likened it to offering an “astronomical dowry.” She asked when staff intended to complete the purchase of the property. Mr. Braud replied that staff would do so when council provided the direction to do so and approved the budget actions necessary to proceed. Councilor Bettman declared that she was sure staff already had a date set for when that would be. Mr. Braud responded that the options on the properties would begin to expire in mid-September, October, and in November. He said if there was an opportunity to proceed in September per direction from the City Council, the City could exercise its options in mid-September. Councilor Bettman asked what would happen if the property was purchased and the development plan was unacceptable to the community and to the developer. Mr. Braud replied that it was not possible to speculate at this point. He said among the possibilities were a subsequent project that could be attracted to the site in the short-term that could still meet the national objective, the City could sell the property and repay the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting funds and if that was not enough to repay HUD it would have to use the urban renewal funds it had pledged in order to do so. He noted that the latter would be the “worst case scenario.” Councilor Bettman felt the money was going to be used strictly to purchase property and would not be used to revitalize the downtown. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen to the HUD grant if the project was delayed. Mr. Braud replied that there was no deadline but there was a 30- to 60-day review process. He stated that if the vote on the resolution was delayed until September it would put the end of the review process into November. Roll call vote; the motion to postpone failed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 8:45 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: Resolution 1044 Authorizing Issuance of Urban Renewal Bonds for Projects Receiving Funding from HUD Section 108 Loan Proceeds City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that the present action was the “other half of this transaction.” He asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to speak to it. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the resolution was a companion to the resolution that was just approved and would authorize the agency to issue a bond to the City. She said in the past the City had made this kind of agreement with the agency, most recently in relation to the library project. Councilor Bettman opposed the resolution. She averred that the financial mechanism would lead to the inevitable expenditure of funds. She did not believe it would not have a demonstrable benefit. Councilor Ortiz said she found this issue challenging because of the amount of money that was being talked about and that the voters would not be asked to vote on it. She asked whether the City, after purchasing the properties, could sell them to the “highest payer.” Mr. Braud replied that if the City sold the property to the highest bidder and that entity “just sat on it” and the City did not meet the national objective, which he would consider to be the worst case scenario, the City would have to repay the money with the proceeds supplemented by the urban renewal funds. He said if the property was purchased by a hospital, using an example Councilor Ortiz had cited, it would still meet the criterion related to job creation. Councilor Bettman commented that the City had not sold a property at a profit during her tenure. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the $8 million estimated for debt service was considered under land assembly. She clarified that the $40 million maximum indebtedness figure included the $7,895,000 HUD loan, but it did not include the BEDI grant. She said she would provide a chart for the councilors that would explain exactly what was included under maximum indebtedness and what was included in the West Broadway project as it was conceived of at that point at the August 13 meeting at which the urban renewal plan amendment would be considered. Councilor Zelenka asked how much had been spent on the options the City had negotiated thus far. Mr. Braud replied that the City had spent approximately $100,000. Councilor Zelenka observed that several were coming up for renewal in September. He said the City could potentially negotiate so that the City would spend several thousand dollars to extend the options to purchase the properties until March. He surmised that this would be sufficient time to have a development agreement in place so that the transfer of properties would go straight to the developers. Mr. Braud responded that this would be the ideal scenario. Councilor Zelenka said in the worst case the City would have to buy some or all of the properties, but it would be a decision the council would make. Mayor Piercy suggested, in line with the job creation component, that an opportunity for an apprenticeship program could be a component of the project. Urban Renewal Agency President Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 1044 authorizing issuance of urban renewal bonds for projects receiving funding from HUD Section 108 Loan proceeds. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 8:57 p.m. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor explained that this was another ordinance that sought to make the Eugene Code conform with legislation related to Ballot Measure 37. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4951, an ordinance amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 25, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Cultural Policy Review Final Report Mayor Piercy noted the many members of the Mayor’s Cultural Policy Review Committee who were present at the meeting and expressed appreciation for the work of chair Tina Rinaldi and co-chair David Kelly, staff, and the consultants. Ms. Bettman arrived. Mayor Piercy thanked the members of the committee, which included Ms. Rinaldi, Mr. Kelly, Bill Blix, Kurt Boyd, Cheryl Crumbley, Alan Evens, Mindy Linder, Jerry McDonnell, Kaz Oveissi, Gretchen Hult Pierce, Richard Scheeland, Tim Smith, Betty Snowden, Rex Stevens, Yvonne Stubbs, Mary Unruh, Kari Westlund, Rick Williams, and Margarite Zolman. City Manager Dennis Taylor emphasized the creativity and commitment that went into local arts and suggested there was still room for modernization and improvement. There were gaps that needed to be addressed, and the committee’s final report contained many positive recommendations to create a framework for the future. Cultural Services Division Manager Laura Niles thanked the council for funding the committee effort. She thanked the committee members and asked them to stand to be recognized. Council members acknowledged the committee with applause. Ms. Niles thanked consultants Marc Goldring and Claudia Bach for their contributions and for the work they did with the community. Ms. Niles discussed the tradition of performing arts in the community and the support demonstrated by the community, which led to the creation of the Hult Center and to the support shown today. She also suggested that the arts offered local residents career opportunities and helped to attract bright and intelligent people to MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2007 Page 1 Work Session the community. The arts sector was a sustainable business sector that attracted other related industries. She cited the Hult Center as an example. Ms. Niles noted the access to real life arts experiences that University of Oregon students enjoyed. She said the cultural policy review offered a variety of opportunities to enrich the arts sector and add value to all aspects of life in Eugene. Mr. Goldring provided a brief overview of national trends in the arts scene. He highlighted the value of the arts in bringing people together. Ms. Bach discussed the conditions the consultants found in the Eugene arts scene, emphasizing the lack of central coordinating entity. Mr. Goldring emphasized the richness of the report provided to the council and suggested that given the increased awareness of the value of arts and cultural nationally, the community could not afford to rest on its laurels, but needed to work toward both sustaining what it had and toward greater understanding of what needed to be provided for future success. He said the committee’s recommendations focused on the priority strategies identified through the planning process. Mr. Goldring said the report addressed a 10-year period, and while all the strategies called out in the report were important, implementing the top five priorities first could help implement the lesser priority strategies over time. He also suggested that some of the lower priority strategies might come about sooner than strategies with a higher priority due to funding availability. Ms. Rinaldi thanked the council for funding the effort, the mayor for appointing her the chair, the council for its direction during committee check-ins, and the committee for its work. She reviewed the committee’s priority strategies and identified involved parties. 1. (Strategy 1.1) Establish an “Alliance” for arts and culture that will coordinate and strengthen the efforts of the public, private, and nonprofit cultural sectors and foster high- level civic leadership in support of arts and culture. City of Eugene, Chamber of Commerce, and local business, cultural and civic organizations) 2. (Strategy I.2) Define a broader role for the City of Eugene relative to arts and culture and provide the necessary staff and budgetary support. 3. Strategy I.3) Establish and fund a dedicated endowment or trust for Eugene’s cultural or- ganizations to increase public and private sector financial support for arts and culture. (City of Eugene, Cultural Organizations, Oregon Community Foundation, Oregon Cultural Trust, Private Sector Businesses, and Community Philanthropists) 4. (Strategy I.4) Conduct a thorough review of Hult Center operations to develop, if necessary, a new mission and implement a new operating model that will support that mission in a long- term, financially sustainable way. (City of Eugene) 5. (Strategy III.4) Implement a coordinated awareness campaign to highlight the value and strength of Eugene’s arts and culture. (City of Eugene, Cultural Organizations, Proposed Al- liance, CVALCO, Chamber of Commerce, LAC, Civic Organizations, UO, and LCC.) Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor thanked the committee. She emphasized the importance of the arts to Eugene, although she acknowledged she continued to be embarrassed by the City slogan, “The World’s Greatest City of the Arts and Outdoors.” Ms. Taylor said upon her arrival in Eugene she had been amazed about how much was available with regard to the arts. She believed that some of the organizations that existed in the past had “died away” because there was no place for them in the Hult Center. She asked if there would be more coordination in the use of space, and if the committee considered the possibility of a downtown theater divided into different spaces. Ms. Niles thought there was the potential for such a theater and many community members who would support it as alliances were built. She said that such theaters were found in other communities. Ms. Taylor said the Atrium used to be a great space for theater when the Oregon Repertory Theater had been housed there. Ms. Taylor said that the Lord Leebrick Theater and Actors Cabaret Theater needed additional space and she thought the City and the whole community should give them money. She said that those organizations had succeeded in delivering really good theater against all odds. Mr. Pryor commended the committee’s report and emphasized the investment people had in realizing the goals of the report, which he termed thorough and achievable. He thought it had a huge benefit to the community with regard to the quality of life and quality of livelihood. He thought the role recommended for the City by the committee was also achievable. The City, in partnership with others, could serve as a catalyst and lend support to achieving the recommendations. He liked seeing the words ‘coordination,’ ‘cooperation,’ and ‘comprehensive’ in the report. He thanked the committee and said it could not have done a better job. Mr. Pryor suggested that this was “just the beginning.” Ms. Ortiz agreed with the remarks of Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pryor. She thanked the committee for the work it had done and acknowledged it was a labor of love. She expressed appreciation to Mr. Goldring for his remarks about the importance of the arts in schools, which she thought was not said enough. Mr. Clark also thanked the committee, consultants, and staff. He commended the report and said it would serve the City for years. He grew up in Yakima, Washington and was very familiar with that community’s Allied Arts Council, first formed in 1962 by the City Council. He had grown up with the alliance in place, and as a youth had attended a special arts school one day each week, which was well-integrated into the community. He found huge value in that. As a father of two young children, he appreciated the work the committee did on their behalf. Mr. Clark spoke to the subject of financing the report’s recommendations, which was of some concern to him. While he would vote to accept the report, he was concerned that it was being implicitly prioritized over other high-priority needs such as street maintenance. He suggested that transportation was a higher priority than the arts, and that the council consider going to the community for funding to implement the report. Ms. Bettman also thanked the consultants and the members of the community that produced the report. She was impressed with the quality of the report and the relevance of its recommendations. She had no problem supporting the report. She agreed about the richness of the local arts scene, to which everyone in the community had access. Ms. Bettman observed that her two children had access to the arts even when her family had less money. People frequently talked about Eugene’s access to the beach and mountains, but it had an extraordinary amount of high-quality events for a community its size. She agreed as to the fragility of the arts organiza- MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2007 Page 3 Work Session tions, which had to reinvent themselves over and over again. She said that cultural attractions were important to the economic vitality of the community and downtown. Speaking to financing, Ms. Bettman said that that City proposed to place $50 million on the table to subsidize retailers downtown without looking at the range of options that existed for how to best leverage that money and do the necessary economic impact studies and give the public the best value for the money. She believed that the implementation of the report should be funded through urban renewal money. Mr. Zelenka commended the committee, the consultants, and staff for producing a realistic and doable plan. He found the arts to be a high priority, and a city that lacked arts and culture was not a city in which he wanted to live. Speaking to the issue of funding, Mr. Zelenka suggested the City faced a continual balancing act in what it wanted to fund, and he thought that to be a thriving city to attract people in a new economy, such investments were needed. People would be more mobile and transient in the future and would be attracted to places with a strong cultural presence. Referring to Strategy I.1, related to the formation of the proposed alliance, Mr. Zelenka asked how the alliance would be formed and what the City was paying for. Ms. Niles said that staff envisioned that an implementation team would be formed to ensure the plan did not sit on a shelf. The team would provide a foundation to get the alliance going. She said the money would provide staff resources, materials, and supplies to the committee to ensure it had a good foundation. The department would look to its internal resources to the degree possible, but she acknowledged some gaps in existing funding. Mr. Zelenka asked what the Hult Center operational examination would encompass. Ms. Niles anticipated a consultant would be hired to examine operations, gaps in services, data collection, and the financial operations of the center. That might lead to a change in the center’s mission. At this time, the mission of the Hult Center was to serve the broadest community. If a consultant recommended changes to the City’s operations or financial model, that would be included in the report. The last study completed was not so in- depth and had not addressed the Hult Center’s future bottom line. Referring to Strategy V.3, related to a coordinator to put together an arts plan, Mr. Zelenka suggested that was a function of the proposed alliance. Ms. Niles said a Public Art Committee had been formed at City Manager Taylor’s behest, and it advised the City on its implementation of the public arts ordinance. The establishment of a public arts coordinator was a lower priority item that had been implemented as a result of the committee’s formation, and the coordinator would staff that committee and be a permanent staff member. Ms. Bach said a public arts plan would provide guidance to the committee as it implemented the ordinance in a more targeted manner that was dovetailed with other community priorities. City Manager Taylor added that the quality and maintenance of the art as well as the space for the art were all committee topics. The City had a long tradition of allocating money for public art but it had not always placed its arts expenditures in a larger framework. Mr. Zelenka asked if the West Broadway Advisory Committee had discussed how its work might impact the provision of public art downtown. City Manager Taylor suggested that staff and the arts committee could work in the same time frame as the West Broadway Advisory Committee to make recommendations for public art in association with the West Broadway redevelopment project. Acting Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Renee Grube concurred with City Manager Taylor and indicated that staff would have more information when it had more clarity about the budget. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the West Broadway Advisory Committee could add on to its charge regarding the open spaces to discuss public space. Mayor Piercy agreed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Piercy was glad to hear that the Chamber of Commerce was open to playing a role, and suggested the schools also be engaged in a discussion of “what we do together.” She also liked that the City’s diversity goals were being looked at through the lens of the arts and hoped that arts could be integrated into all of the City’s priorities. Mayor Piercy said she liked the City’s slogan. She thought there was strength in the combination of the arts and outdoors, and while Eugene might be not the greatest such city in the world, she thought it offered many great things to the community and its visitors. Ms. Solomon understood the need for the alliance and asked if it was the committee’s expectation that the alliance would eventually become self-supporting and self-funded. Ms. Rinaldi said yes. The City would convene the group initially, which would become independent or perhaps attached to a civic group such as the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Solomon said she thought urban renewal money could only be used on capital infrastructure. City Manager Taylor said it could be used for eligible activities, and that could include facilities, land assembly, or construction. He said the Hult Center was not in the downtown urban renewal district, but the City might be able to use urban renewal funds as a part of a coordinated effort in both districts to support implementa- tion activities. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, City Manager Taylor recommended that when the report had been costed out, a proposal for funding would be brought back to the council for adoption. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the Cultural Policy Review final report, and to direct the City Manager to initiate implementation and identify funding for Priority 1 strategies during the FY09 budget realignment process, and initiate additional strategies that can be accomplished with the help of community partners and within existing resources. Ms. Taylor reminded Mayor Piercy that when she spoke in Russia she had said the City was aspiring to be the greatest city of the arts and outdoors rather than claiming it was the greatest city of the arts and outdoors. She said that $100,000 was the same amount the City paid for property options downtown and she thought the arts was a better expenditure of such money. She suggested the City could use urban renewal money to fund construction of a theater downtown. Ms. Taylor agreed as to the importance of arts in the schools and said the “No Child Left Behind” Act was helping to destroy arts in the schools. Regarding the issue of coordination, she thought coordination and information would be good and pointed out that in other communities the library was frequently the custodian of such information. Mr. Zelenka encouraged everyone to participate in the West Broadway Advisory Committee process through its discussion of open space or the mix of proposed uses. He said the August 3 First Friday Art Walk would include a community involvement even and a public forum was scheduled the next day. Mr. Zelenka asked how the endowment worked. Ms. Rinaldi anticipated the implementation committee would determine that. The intention was that it would be both public and privately funded. It would be used for community arts grants. Ms. Taylor congratulated the manager on his recommendation regarding coordination of the one percent for the arts funding. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman urged the public to review the urban renewal plan. She maintained that anything could be funded as long as it benefited the urban renewal area, including projects and activities outside the bounda- ries. City Manager Taylor said the City had a rich infrastructure and great resources but the community could not rest on its laurels and must refrain from being a mile wide and an inch deep. He noted the changing demographics and interests and wanted to seize the moment to ensure that the community was a step ahead in taking advantage of the opportunities presented by those changes. He said the implementation team needed to consider that. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2007 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon August 13, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy asked councilors to let her know if they wished to participate in the Eugene Celebration parade. She said she had received a number of inquiries regarding Civic Stadium and suggested that people interested in the future of the stadium should contact the School District 4J Board of Directors. Ms. Taylor reported on rededication of the restored torah and its return to the synagogue. She attended a Crest Drive neighborhood meeting and those present expressed their pleasure with the context-sensitive design process. She said that several constituents expressed concern about the “hate letters” to the editor regarding bicycles. She asked if generating more tax revenue from more houses and businesses would result in a reduction in the amount individuals were paying on bonds, such as the library bond. She noted that a work session on smoking was scheduled in October, but wondered whether there was any way to obtain relief in the interim for people affected by smokers and noise from The Old Pad. Mr. Poling said he recently attended a clean water agencies conference in Bend. He said the area's own wastewater manage agency, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), was praised by agencies from around the state. He said that many jurisdictions across the state and the country had plans to upgrade facilities similar to MWMC's plans. He was pleased that work had begun on Willakenzie Park. He attended a multi-cultural festival at Sheldon Community Center and remarked on the good attendance. He also attended a Cal Young neighborhood association potluck. Ms. Solomon reported on the Eugene Police Department's (EPD) partnership with Kiwanis International in a presentation of the Safety Town program. She said the program would educate children on a variety of safety issues over the next two weeks. Mr. Clark commended the new police auditor facility at the corner of 8th Avenue and Olive Street in downtown where he recently attended an open house for the community. He said the mayor's one-on-one session in north Eugene generated input from several different points of view. He had also attended the Cal Young neighborhood potluck and noted that the neighborhood association was searching for a new president. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka commented that the West Broadway Advisory Committee had hosted two recent public involvement events. He said about 400 people attended the first event and 130 the second event to provide input on the downtown project. He said the level of participation confirmed that the project was important to the community. He said the Eugene Pride Day event was well-attended and enjoyable. He agreed with Mr. Clark that the new police auditor facility was pleasant and people-friendly. Mr. Zelenka announced that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was developing a new, interactive website using Google maps to identify and provide details of every transportation project using State or federal funds in the metropolitan area. He said the Regional Transportation Plan was being updated and there would be a public hearing at the September MPC meeting. Ms. Ortiz reminded the community that the City was accepting applications for boards and commissions and encouraged individuals who were interested in becoming more involved in local government activities to apply. She attended the Human Rights Commission potluck and enjoyed spending time with members of the advocacy community. She indicated she had recently participated in a panel discussion before a group of Latino youth about being involved in local government and encouraged them to consider public sector careers, including firefighting. She hoped that councilors were responsive to feedback from staff on the council's goal related to race. She said that pollution in the railroad yards was a critical concern and the community was looking to the council for leadership. She hoped the problem could be the subject of a council work session. Mayor Piercy conveyed appreciation from the synagogue to the City for it support and speaking out against hate crimes. Ms. Jones thanked the council for the opportunity to serve as interim city manager. She said her objective during the transition period was to keep communications open to ensure she was following the council's direction. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to allocate up to $7,500 from General Fund contingency to provide for fully free event parking at all City garages and parking meters during the Eugene Celebration. Mayor Piercy reported that Downtown Events Management, Inc. (DEMI) felt free parking would invite people into downtown for the celebration. She said DEMI was also pursuing those things in which the council expressed an interest, including free buses, bike parking and alternative forms of transportation. Mr. Zelenka asked if the $7,500 allocation would go into the parking fund. Ms. Jones said it would. Ms. Bettman said she would be unable to support the motion even though it was not a significant amount of money because it meant the council was taking one step forward and two steps back. She said if the council wanted to move towards sustainability, it had to incentivize behavior that would lead to sustainability and disincentive behavior that was unsustainable. Mayor Piercy felt the motion accomplished several things: it invited people to come downtown, it encouraged an interest in the development of downtown, it supported a special event, and it encouraged the use of alternative forms of transportation. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy invited Laura Niles of the Hult Center to discuss a recent grant opportunity that had been presented to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR). Ms. Niles explained that Cultural Services, on behalf of the Public Art Committee, had followed through on preparing a grant application for the National Endowment for the Arts in the amount of $75,000. She said the grant would support providing online access and coordination of all the City's public art materials, which was part of the work plan of the Public Art Committee. She said if selected, the grant funds would be awarded in June 2008 and work would be completed by June 2009. Mayor Piercy said staff had only recently been informed of the opportunity and applications had to be mailed by 8 p.m. on August 13, 2007. She related that staff had contacted the CCIGR via email regarding the grant application and two committee members were in support and one was not, requiring that the issue come before the full council. Ms. Bettman said that grants came to the CCIGR in a precipitous manner so often it was the exception if the committee was able to make a considered decision. She complained that committee feedback was dismissed because there was no time to consider it and that was a practice she had voiced objections to for years. She said in this particular situation, the grant proposal was a lower priority on the list of activities recommended by the Cultural Policy Review (CPR) Task Force, which had recently been adopted by the council. She did not consent to the proposed project because it was not a high priority and a Priority 1 project could be completed for the same amount of money. She said it was necessary to say "no" or such behavior never changed. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Niles explained that the project was Priority 3 in the CPR recommendations; however, the grant funds could only be used to achieve five outcomes identified by the NEA and the only one the City could pursue related to preservation of artistic works and cultural traditions. She said the other outcomes related to programming activities that were not CPR recommendations. She apologized if information about the application deadline and limited scope of the funds was not provided to the CCIGR. She noted that during the council's discussion of the CPR recommendations and prioritization, it was recognized that higher and lower priority activities might be pursued simultaneously if the opportuni- ties arose. Ms. Solomon asked if match funds were required. Ms. Niles said that it would be a one-time award, no local match was required and there would be no ongoing costs to the City. Ms. Solomon said she would support the motion, particularly as the City did not have to provide a match. Mr. Pryor saw no reason not to apply for the grant funds, even if the money could not be spent on higher priorities. He thought it was a reasonable request, the City could definitely use the funds and he would support the grant application request. Ms. Ortiz asked how much staff time was involved in preparing the grant application. Ms. Niles said that some of the work was done by an intern and estimated that her staff had spent between 20 and 30 hours on the application. Ms. Ortiz said it was worth a week of staff time to apply for the funds, even if the project was not one of the highest CPR recommendations. She thanked staff for bringing the opportunity to the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she would support the application because the project would not displace other activities and no match was required. Ms. Bettman asked why the Community Calendar, which was one of the highest CPR recommendations, could not be the subject of the grant application. Ms. Niles replied that she initially thought that would be possible, but when she saw the specific outcomes that must be achieved by projects she realized it would not be an eligible activity. Mayor Piercy observed that during the CPR discussions, it was acknowledged that opportunities might arise where it would be advantageous for the City to pursue more than one recommendation at the same time and she felt the current situation was in that category. She asked the city manager to develop a proposal for handling situations in the future when grant applications did not go before the IGR in a timely manner. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize staff to apply for a National Endowment for the Arts Access to Artistic Excellence grant in the amount of $75,000. Ms. Bettman said that since neither Priority 1 nor Priority 2 projects were eligible for the funds she would support the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Solid Waste Collection/Fee Structure Ms. Jones introduced Nancy Young of the Planning and Development Department to provide an overview of solid waste collection and fee structure. Ms. Young said the City Charter, Eugene Code, and administrative rules governed the solid waste and recycling collection system. She reviewed a history of the system, noting that in 1989, the council adopted an ordinance that moved rate-setting to the administrative rules and capped hauler licenses at the 22 that were active at the time, with the provision to retire licenses as companies left the business. She said the council adopted additional changes between 1990 and 1995 to address rising residential collection costs and Oregon's recycling laws. She said a comprehensive rate analysis was conducted in 1998 and the City began basing rates on the revenues and expenses of the largest haulers as most representative of the customer base instead of a combination of differently sized companies; at the same time the target rate of return for licensees was set at 11 percent. Ms. Young said that curbside yard debris recycling, begun in 2000, diverted more than 12,000 tons annually. She said in 2001, in response to rising residential rates, the council directed staff to maintain the current system and blend residential and commercial financial information to contain residential rates. Since 2003, the focus had been on cost containment, increased diversion, and education. She said the system currently consisted of seven local haulers and multiple services choices; rates had stabilized to be within the rate of inflation and in a recent survey the customer satisfaction rate was 97 percent. In the matter of collection rates, she said staff performed an analysis of hauler financial data and determined that an increased was needed to meet the current standards. Mayor Piercy remarked that one of the Sustainability Commission's goals would be zero waste. She was interested in the other green functions schools were engaged in besides recycling. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked when the requirement that people take their cans to the curb was imposed. She said that the haulers used to come up to the house or garage to retrieve cans and wondered how much they had saved by not performing that service. She asked if other cities guaranteed haulers an 11 percent profit. Ms. Young said there had been an additional charge if cans were not brought to the curb for as long as she could remember, but she would check into that. She said that cities approached the issue of profit in a number of ways. She said Eugene calculated it on revenue minus disposal fee; other cities used gross revenue. She said Portland's target was 9.5 percent, but that was on gross revenue and that made a substantial difference. Ms. Taylor wondered why haulers needed an 11 percent profit and asked how that target was set. Ms. Young said during the 1998 rate review a staff advisory committee looked at other comparable cities within the State and made that recommendation. Mr. Zelenka explained that in a traditional regulatory pact for a utility, there was a guaranteed rate of return for an exclusive franchise. He said typically the rate of returned range between 10 and 12 percent. Mr. Clark asked if there were other costs deducted from the 11 percent rate. Ms. Young said the rate was pre-tax and interest was also deducted. Mr. Clark asked if the customer satisfaction survey had been conducted before the rate adjustment in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Ms. Young said it happened in March 2007, before the adjustment. Mr. Clark commented that the River Road/Santa Clara area had a mix of City and County residents and County collection rates were not regulated. He said at one time, haulers would charge City residents a lower rate comparable to the County rate being charged neighbors, but were now required to charge the City rate. Ms. Young said that enforcement was prompted at the request of a hauler. She did not think the County had raised its rates to be comparable to the City's, but the County did not provide yard debris service as part of the base charge. Mr. Clark asked how much additional revenue haulers realized as a result of increasing rates in River Road/Santa Clara and if all City residents were now being charged the City rate. Ms. Young replied that she would provide the financial information following the meeting. She believed that all City residents were now being appropriately charged for collection services. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Young responded that rates were within the CPI (consumer price index) and there had not been a residential rate increase since 2001. She said haulers had been able to achieve a number of efficiencies. Ms. Bettman said she took issue with the rate-setting and whether or not generators of less waste were paying more per volume or pound than those who generated larger amounts. She also had an issue with the yard debris program, which was a great program except for the fact that people were paying year round when the bulk of yard debris occurred during certain times of the year. She thought it would be preferable to have weekly collection of yard debris during those times and it was unfair to charge residents throughout the year. Ms. Bettman commented that 20-gallon cans were not available on an every-other-week basis. She compared the rate charged to commercial customers for one cubic yard to the residential rate for a 32 gallon can collected every other week and concluded that commercial customers paid about half the rate of residential customers for the same amount of waste. Ms. Young replied that residential rates were MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 5 Work Session progressive by weight and weight studies were performed periodically to give an assumed weight, whereas commercial rates were progressive by volume because of the differences between businesses. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Young said that some cities established a rate of return range, such as 9 to 11 percent, instead of a specific rate like Eugene and it was misleading to compare Eugene's rate to other cities as other cities included the disposal fee. Mr. Zelenka said Eugene's rate would be 9 percent if it were calculated in the same way. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification of the term "progressive rates" as it appeared the rate by volume decreased as the amount of waste increased. Ms. Young explained that residential weight studies had found that a 32-gallon container usually had more weight per gallon that a 60- or 90-gallon container, most likely as a result of people downsizing containers and putting more into them. She said for commercial rates there was a volume factor that took into consideration that a two-yard container would not be exactly double a one-yard container for the same reason. Ms. Taylor asked why 20-gallon cans could not be picked up every other week. Ms. Young said she did not know the answer, but a residential customer could choose to have a 32-gallon can that was collected once a month. She would check into the 20-gallon can issue. Ms. Bettman remarked that cans were getting heavier because people were removing yard debris and recyclable materials and what remained were heavier items. She said that worked against sustainability principles because a cheaper rate and larger can meant that people were less likely to remove things that did not need to go into the waste stream. Referring to a 32-gallon can picked up monthly in lieu of a 20-gallon can picked up every other week, she did not think it was feasible to keep garbage for that length of time. Ms. Young replied that typically those customers did not put garbage in their cans and that seemed to work for them. Ms. Bettman felt that presented a disincentive to the use of smaller containers. She hoped the council would have another work session to address the issues that had been raised. She referred to the schedule of fees on page 57 of the agenda packet and pointed out that if the residential rate for a 32-gallon can was converted to a cubic yard equivalent, it would be twice as high as the commercial rate. She said the City should choose either a per weight or per volume rate structure and apply it equally to both residential and commercial customers and make rates progressive by charging a higher rate for putting more material into the waste stream. Mr. Zelenka stated that Lane County charged a tipping fee by weight, not volume, and it made sense for the City's rate was based on weight. He asked for an explanation of how calculations went from weight to rates for the residential fees. He commented that there was no competition in the City's waste collection system as Sanipac had an 85 percent market share with the remaining 15 percent split among the other six haulers; that was why there was a regulated rate. Ms. Bettman requested another work session on the issue. She commented that operational costs for haulers were counted as the cost of doing business before the profit was added, but the public had no say in how those companies were operated while being responsible for guaranteeing an 11 percent profit. She asked staff to provide information regarding what costs were included in the calculations and what mechanism the City used to audit those costs and determine if they were reasonable. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the discussion by five min- utes. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Clark voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka commented that the transportation funding subcommittee proposed a garbage-hauling fee of about $1.00 per residential can and an equivalent for commercial customers. He said that would have been treated like the disposal fee and not included in the calculation of profit; it could have been done at no additional administrative cost to the City and would have spread the costs fairly. He said the fee would also have been directly related to one of the reasons the streets were deteriorated—-heavy garbage trucks—and there was no objection from staff. He said the subcommittee had not found an administratively viable way to charge a fee to all heavy trucks. Mr. Clark commented that the rates for customers in River Road/Santa Clara had been raised earlier in the year to bring them up to the City's rates and now there was a discussion of raising the rates again. He asked staff to provide information on the number of households that were affected by the rate increases. Ms. Taylor remarked that not everyone had waste collection services as some could not afford it. She felt it was wrong for the City to establish a minimum instead of a maximum rate as that did not allow haulers to charge less. Ms. Young said it was unlikely that most haulers would charge less and if a maximum rate were established, it would allow the largest hauler to charge less than smaller haulers. Ms. Taylor asked if haulers could be required to provide 20-gallon can collection on a weekly basis. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that legally the City could impose that requirement. Ms. Bettman asked why residential rates incorporated the disposal fee but commercial rates for front load compactors and drop boxes did not. Ms. Young explained that one- to six-yard commercial containers did include the disposal fee; for larger sizes, the entire container was taken to the transfer station where it was weighed and the customer charged the actual costs. Ms. Bettman indicated she would request more information and options from staff for an additional work session. C. WORK SESSION: Report from Council Subcommittee on City Manager Recruitment Alana Holmes, Human Resources, said the purpose of the discussion was to provide information and a recommendation to the council on selection of an executive recruitment firm to lead the city manager recruitment process. She said a council subcommittee established selection criteria and used those criteria to narrow the initial 12 firms to three finalists. She said all three firms were interviewed by phone and Bennett Yarger Associates was unanimously recommended as the recruitment firm to assist in the city manager recruitment. Mayor Piercy commented that the firm being recommended stood above the others in terms of what it could offer and she supported the recommendation. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the city manager to executive a contract with Bennett Yarger Associates to assist the City Council with the re- cruitment and hiring of a city manager. Ms. Ortiz hoped that the process would move swiftly and be completed by the end of the year. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pryor thanked Ms. Ortiz for her modified motion, which strengthened the relationship between the City Council and the recruitment firm. He agreed with the selection of Bennett Yarger Associates and felt that the selection process had gone well, with the subcommittee generally in agreement with the choice. Ms. Bettman concurred with Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor's remarks. Mr. Poling supported the motion and the recommendations of his fellow members of the subcommittee. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that many contracts included "non-poaching" clauses that prevent a firm from attempting to recruit a candidate it had already placed and Bennett Yarger had placed many people in city manager positions in comparable cities. Ms. Holmes said she would check into that issue. Mr. Zelenka asked if criteria for a city manager and outcomes anticipated in three to five years had been discussed with the firms. Ms. Holmes said that would be part of the next step of the process. Mr. Zelenka observed that $20,000 seemed like a fairly low fee. He asked if Robert Neher of Bennett Yarger would do the recruitment. Ms. Holmes said Mr. Neher had indicated he would be the primary person working with the City on the recruitment process. Mr. Zelenka asked how many other recruitments the firm was undertaking at the same time. Ms. Holmes said she would provide that information. Ms. Taylor hoped that all councilors would be deciding on city manager criteria and not just the subcommit- tee. Ms. Holmes said that would be something the full council would be involved in. Mayor Piercy said the only remaining work for the subcommittee was to establish a tentative schedule for the remainder of the process. Ms. Taylor asked if 90 days was a feasible timeframe to complete the process. Ms. Holmes said that Mr. Neher felt that timeframe possible. Mr. Clark was uncomfortable with expediting the process. He wanted the City to hire the best possible candidate and wanted the option to take longer if that was what was needed. Ms. Ortiz felt that 90 days was a reasonable amount of time, but it could be extended if necessary. She did not want an open-ended process and wanted to see a person in that leadership role as soon as possible. Ms. Bettman remarked that all of the firms thought 90 days was a reasonable period. She said most firms had similar processes for working with the council to establish criteria and objectives. She said that Bennett Yarger provided a wide range of services to jurisdictions beyond recruitment, including training, audits and budgeting and had many contacts in local governments that would provide access to high quality candidates. She thought the council subcommittee could recommend a range of questions and options for the council to consider for interviewing and conducting outreach to the community. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification of the roles of the three individuals from Bennett Yarger who would be involved in the recruitment process. Ms. Holmes said she understood that Mr. Neher would be working directly with the City and the other partners would provide supporting services. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Holmes reviewed the next steps in the process. Ms. Bettman suggested that the September 10 work session could continue with the recruitment process as there was currently only one item on the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones Interim City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall August 15, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 20384 Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Licenses; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing for an Immediate Effective Date Ms. Bettman questioned why it was necessary for the council to waive the charter-imposed, ten-day public announcement period. She acknowledged the emergency provision that existed in the charter to make action possible, but the council was not facing any deadlines. City Attorney Glenn Klein recalled that the council agreed to repeal the ordinance that had been referred and directed the manager to return with an ordinance that repealed the sunset provision and referred the three-cent increase to the ballot. The first step necessary was repeal of the adopted ordinance, and staff was requesting action today rather than in September because with there were legal issues surrounding the timing of the certification of signatures and future council related to the ordinance. If the council wished to place something on the November ballot, it had to act today on the second item on the agenda. City Recorder Mary Feldman confirmed that August 15 was the last day for the council to refer an item to the ballot. Ms. Ortiz arrived. Mr. Klein reviewed the order of the proceedings to occur. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that, with the unanimous consent of the council, to hold the public hearing at this time based on the individual notice provided to the attorney for the gas station owners and the media notice. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Ron Tyree , 4000 Spring Boulevard, owner of Tyree Oil and a participant in the effort to refer the council’s decision to raise the fuel tax to the voters, termed the action the council was contemplating with regard to the fuel tax outrageous. He said the council was refusing to allow the voters to consider the entire five-cent increase and instead proposed to repeal the original ordinance, replace it with a new ordinance raising the MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 1 Work Session tax by two cents, and to refer a three-cent increase to the voters. Mr. Tyree said both increases were mandated to be voted on, and by taking the action contemplated, the council was dismissing the democratic process. He said that was “political arrogance in action” which damaged the integrity of the democratic process in Eugene. He was embarrassed the leaders of his community would consider such an action, and expressed concurrence with a recent editorial in The Register Guard that the council action would shift from the public debate from one of the merits of the tax to the credibility of the council. He assured the council he would work to refer the two-cent tax as well. Paul Romain , 707 SW Washington Street, #927, Portland, agreed with the remarks of Mr. Tyree. He said the council made an interesting political move during its last discussion but he questioned whether it was well thought-out as essentially it meant the two-cent increase would go to the ballot in March 2008. He did not think that was a good approach, and recommended that the entire increase be placed on the ballot. All the council was doing by its action was ensuring that two elections would occur, which he termed a waste of money. Terry Connelly , 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, recom- mended that the council repeal Ordinance 20384, pertaining to a local gas tax, and further recommended the council take no further action on the tax at this time and focus on other funding methods, such as a capital local option levy. He acknowledged the desire of some councilors for a complete transportation funding package but suggested the council think about the sequencing of such a package. The chamber preferred that the council begin where there was the most common ground and potential for collaboration, which was the capital local option levy. Mr. Connelly suggested that such a levy would enjoy greater support if it was discussed without a lingering debate about the gas tax or enactment of other fees. He suggested that alternatively, the council refer the entire five-cent increase to the voters. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and invited questions and comments from the council. Ms. Bettman believed the gas tax was the revenue source with the most support among councilors. She also thought the council supported a capital levy, but pointed out that only revenue could only be collected from residents, while a gas tax would capture the impact of nonresidents. Ms. Ortiz believed the council was only asking for a “few measily pennies” and took exception to sugges- tions that the council was not acting with integrity. She found that “very offensive” and she personally believed her integrity was high and that she worked really hard and did not appreciate such “personal attacks.” Mr. Clark noted his focus on street repair when running for office, which he considered a chief job for local government. He also generally supported a gas tax increase as he thought there was a logical nexus that existed and that it was important to capture the cost of the nonresident users of the road. While he also took exception with the characterization of the council’s action, after reading The Register-Guard editorial he believed the voters should be given an opportunity to vote on the two-cent increase as well. He believed to do otherwise was to create voter cynicism that might threaten other council goals and objectives. He did not want to erode the voters’ public confidence in the council. Mr. Zelenka accused the oil industry of profiteering from the war and noted that the gas tax had not been increased by the State since 1978. He said that the community had been “abandoned” by both the State and federal governments with regard to funding for street maintenance. The money kept decreasing while the need continued to increase, which was not acceptable “to a lot of people I talk to.” Subsequently, the council created a funding package that included a gas tax increase. He favored the gas tax because of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 2 Work Session nexus between road use and the tax. Such an increase captured the impact of those who did not live in Eugene and did not pay property taxes but used City streets. He had no objection to both increases going to the ballot and was also fine if people did not support them; but he was not going to cut recreation programs or afterschool programs for kids to make the roads better. He noted a recent survey related to the new city hall in which residents were asked their top five concerns, and the top concern voiced by all but one ward was the condition of the streets and roads. Mr. Poling said that the City was not getting much help from Lane County, and Junction City, for example, was also considering a gas tax increase. While he supported a gas tax and agreed as to the nexus, he thought those who signed the petition referring the increase thought they were voting to refer the entire amount. He supported placing the entire amount on the ballot. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the values that were driving both points of view in regard to the issue. He said he did not stand to profit from the issue and so had to act as he thought best for the community, which was to fix the potholes. He was also supportive of placing both increases on the ballot as it was likely the two-cent increase would be successfully referred as well. He trusted the voters to do the right thing. Mr. Pryor suggested that if the City was having this much trouble with three or five cents, he questioned what would happen when larger amounts were discussed. He was concerned that those who were professing to be the City’s partners would no longer be its partners in the future. He continued to support the funding package and emphasized the importance of moving forward. He wanted to do what was best for the community. Mr. Clark thought all the councilors were trying to do what was best for the community, but there were values at odds. He agreed many cities were contemplating similar taxes, and suggested a countywide gas tax was the best answer to the existing problem. He concurred with the recommendation offered by Mr. Connelly. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved with the unanimous consent of the council to consider enactment of the ordinance at this time. Mr. Zelenka suggested a gas tax was most environmentally responsible of all the taxing instruments that the council had considered given its resemblance to the carbon tax. Regarding the idea of a countywide gas tax increase, Mr. Zelenka maintained that the petroleum distributors and gas station operators rejected that proposal as well and would refer it as well. He said that they did not want to have a gas tax increase and their objections had nothing to do with fairness. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the councilors would be subject to the tax. He acknowledged that poor residents would have a hard time paying for the increase, but the council needed to be fair and have a way to get money from people who drove in Eugene but did not live there. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka’s remarks, Mr. Poling said that he repeatedly heard representatives of the industry speak in support of a fair, equitable tax increase that was applied statewide. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Poling, saying many industry representatives had spoken of the need for a statewide fix to what was a statewide problem. He thought that would be wise, but pointed out that would require waiting for action by the 2009 legislature, which would take too long. He favored a countywide solution at this point. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman said a countywide solution, if it was forthcoming, would not give Eugene the ability to control the expenditure of the revenues received. She did not think the City could count on an equitable distribution of those revenues throughout the county. Ms. Bettman said the legislature contemplated many road funding bills, and if the industry wanted a gas tax increase, it would have introduced legislation to that effect, but it had not. Mayor Piercy commended the council for its willingness to take action. She thought the council should be praised rather than condemned. She considered the increase fair. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4952, an ordinance repealing Ordinance 20384, concerning motor vehicle fuel dealer’s licenses. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. ACTION: Resolution 4915 Calling a City Election on November 6, 2007, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Adding a New Subsection (c) to Section 3.467 of the Eugene Code, 1971, to Increase by $0.03 per Gallon the Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s License Tax Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4915 calling a City election on November 6, 2007, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the city of Eugene a measure adding a new Subsection (c) to Section 3.467 of the Eugene Code, 1971, to in- crease by $0.03 per gallon the motor vehicle fuel dealer’s business license tax Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend Resolution 4915 by amending the cap- tion and finding J by inserting before the period the text “and the measure repealing Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337” and by renumbering sections 2, 3, and 4 on pages 2-3 to be sec- tions 3, 4, and 5, and adding a new Section 2 that read “A City election is called for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure repealing Section 3 of Ordinance no. 20337 (the sunset provision). Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein clarified that the two items would be separate measures on the ballot but were combined into one resolution. Ms. Bettman thought an ordinance adopted by the council could be referred within 30 days, and asked if it was legal for the oil industry to refer an ordinance adopted by the council after the 30 days had elapsed. Mr. Klein clarified that the industry had referred the council’s legislative action repealing the sunset from of an earlier ordinance. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion, saying the industry could have referred the two-cent increase when it was initially adopted. Mr. Clark said while he appreciated Ms. Bettman’s remarks, the issue for him was not what the industry wanted, but what the people wanted. He suggested that the industry had expected the council to come up with a better option in the meantime. Mr. Clark said the citizens had signed petitions to vote on the issue and he intended to support them. Mayor Piercy suggested an argument could be made that the voters were not offered the option of voting on the three-cent or five-cent options separately. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz recalled that she had requested the sunset provision initially but now had no problem opposing the motion because she did not think there was much backlash from the two-cent increase. She had considered it an incremental step in the right direction. The tax did not bankrupt anyone. She felt that retaining the two-cent increase was a good idea and said if the council repealed the tax it would be taking a step backward. Mr. Zelenka also did not support the motion and agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s remarks. He assured the viewing public that every penny of the gas tax was going to fix pot holes. It was not being used for other purposes. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones concurred. Mr. Pryor suggested that the council take the opportunity to ask the voters about their support for the two- cent increase given that the issue was already going to a vote. He thought it demonstrated good faith with the public. Mr. Pryor said there were other things he wanted to ask the public to fund, and he did not want the gas tax to become a contentious issue that threatened the other elements of the funding package. He had faith that the voters would support both increases because of their interest in having the streets fixed. He supported the amendment. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor. He offered the motion because he thought the voters wanted to fix the problem and he wanted to give the voters their say. Mayor Piercy did not support the motion because of the lack of objection to the initial two-cent increase and because those who signed the petitions were not specifically asked their support of that increase. She suggested that the council “shared a role” with the public in regard to deciding such issues through its role as elected representatives of the people. Mayor Piercy said the City did not need to roll back the two-cent increase. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting no; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Pryor voting yes. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the motion was 6:2; Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark voting no. Mr. Poling indicated his vote of opposition was due to his belief the voters should decide on both increases. C. ACTION: Approval of Motions Relating to Production of a Voter’s Pamphlet for the November 6, 2007, Special Election City Recorder Mary Feldman was present for the item. She called attention to the proposed motions related to the item. She said the deadline for arguments was September 15, so the council needed to take action today, given it was going on recess. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to publish and dis- tribute a local voter’s pamphlet for the special City election scheduled for November 6, 2007, on a measure concerning a motor vehicle fuel dealers’ tax. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman wanted to ensure that the voter’s pamphlet was scheduled to arrive before the ballots were mailed. Ms. Feldman said that staff did its best to ensure that occurred. She said the last day ballots could be mailed was October 23, and the pamphlet was scheduled to be mailed on October 19. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to authorize the expenditure of funds from the General Fund contingency account that are required to produce a voters pamphlet for the November 7, 2007, special election, estimated at $25,000. The motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to appoint Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Solomon, and Ms. Bettman to the voter’s pamphlet proponent committee for the ballot measure. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka voiced hope the entire council could support the outcome of the process. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. D. ACTION: ORDINANCE REFERRAL City Manager pro tem Jones called attention to some background information provided to the council regarding the filing of a referendum petition on the ordinance related to urban renewal adopted by the council on August 13. She recommended that the council consider referring the ordinance to the public on the November 2007 ballot. Mr. Klein indicated that otherwise, if referred, a ballot measure regarding the ordinance would appear on the March 2008 ballot. Ms. Bettman asked what new information the council had regarding the referral. Mayor Piercy said the new information was that the referral had been filed. Ms. Bettman said that the council was informed during the Public Forum preceding its action of the referral and asked why it was not brought up that evening. City Manager pro tem Jones indicated that she was now responding to an actual referral rather than the threat of one. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said the council would amend the ordinance to indicate it would take effect only if approved by the voters at the November 2007 election, and the council would then call an election on the matter. He confirmed that the spending limit for the urban renewal district would not change at this time. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Feldman indicated the cost of a special election was about $200,000. The deadline to refer an issue to the March 2008 election was December 7, 2007. The deadline for a May election was February 18, and there would be no cost to the City for that election outside the costs of voter’s pamphlet. City candidates could participate in the State voter’s pamphlet. Mr. Clark supported allowing the measure to be referred to allow the public to have its say on the matter and to save the City costs. Mayor Piercy suggested it made more sense to refer the matter to the November 2007 ballot because the City could convey to the public what the developers were contemplating and give the developers a sense of whether the public supported the project as soon as possible. City Manager pro tem Jones pointed out the City was operating on a timeline, and a November election kept the City within the timelines established in MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 6 Work Session the agreements with the developers. Pushing the project out until after March could affect the City’s ability to do the project. Ms. Taylor asked if the City Council would refer the ordinance to save the petitioners money. City Manager pro tem Jones said that was one outcome. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Feldman said that an ordinance, once referred, must go on the next available ballot. Ms. Taylor suggested that postponing the election until March 2008 could give people more time to be educated about the project. Mr. Pryor found the remarks of City Manager pro tem Jones persuasive and determined from her that she recommended a November 2007 election. He said he would support the recommendation. Mr. Poling concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He determined from Mr. Braud that the property options for several of the affected properties would expire prior to November but it was likely that the City would negotiate extensions with the property owners or buy the properties. Mr. Poling further determined from City Manager pro tem Jones that the November timeframe gave the City certainty about the project sooner and it gave the City the opportunity to work with the property owners to extend the options. While he would have liked to have seen the petitioners attempt to collect the needed signatures given community dissatisfaction with the current state of downtown, Mr. Poling indicated support for City Manager pro tem Jones’ recommendation. City Manager pro tem Jones believed the recommendation gave the community another opportunity to provide the council with clear feedback on the project. Ms. Ortiz supported the manager’s recommendation. She did not perceive it as a “stall” tactic. She expressed appreciation for the recommendation. She said that people often said to her that the council needed to do something about downtown, and this was a way for them to vote yes. Mr. Zelenka believed that a March or May 2008 election was too late. He had no problem asking the public to vote and believed the measure would pass easily. He expressed concern that since the West Broadway Advisory Committee had not finished its work, the developers had no plan the council could share with the public in an informational campaign. Mr. Clark endorsed the manager’s recommendation. He did not fear asking the public to vote on the proposal because he thought it would pass by a large margin. He determined from Mr. Braud that there was some flexibility under the current district spending limit sufficient to cover some, but not all, of the options. Mr. Braud said the City could consider other funding sources. Mr. Clark had some concern about the options, saying that if the City could not get the options renegotiated, he thought the project would be in jeopardy. Mr. Braud pointed out there was risk on both sides and in both timeframes. He expressed confidence staff could negotiate additional time for the options and did not think prices needed to be renegotiated, although more time could come at a price. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said he would draft the ballot title and that title could be appealed. The State had informed the City that it must follow the State ballot title process rather than the City ballot title process, which meant any appeal would go to the Circuit Court rather than the council. Ms. Taylor asked how much money the City would spend renewing the options. Mr. Braud had no specific number to offer, saying the City’s cost for individual option agreements ranged from $3,000 to almost $20,000. Ms. Taylor asked if the options would cost more if renewed. Mr. Braud said that generally, prices had gone up. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could use current urban renewal funds to purchase the Center MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Court and Washburn Aster buildings. Mr. Braud said yes. Ms. Taylor stated that the City could go ahead with the part of the redevelopment, which she found sensible, without expanding the district’s debt limit. Mr. Braud concurred, noting that would be a council decision. Ms. Bettman asserted the referral process was included in State statute because urban renewal was diverting about $18 million into other projects, some which she considered good and some which she considered not so good. She averred that the referral process was included in the statute due to the fact that urban renewal expenditures were controversial “all over the state.” She believed there were arguments to be made on both sides as to whether urban renewal was a good use of tax dollars. She asked what the City would put on the ballot, given that there was no project or price tag. Mr. Klein said that title would speak to the significant changes made by the ordinance to the plan, including the increase in maximum indebtedness, name change, and extension to 2030. The proponents committee and opponents committee would provide their own information. Ms. Bettman suggested that the City would have more information in March 2008 because it would have a defined project and price tag. She pointed out there was sufficient money in the district to move forward with the Beam proposal, which she supported. She did not think the opponents to the ordinance wanted to stop downtown revitalization; they questioned how the money was being used. Ms. Bettman questioned councilors’ concerns about the options given the amount invested in them was small compared to the overall expenditure being contemplated. She averred that prices for property were going down both nationally and locally, and suggested the City let the options expire and negotiate new, lower prices. She thought there was incentive for the property owners to sell, and asserted that the City was bargaining out of a position of weakness. Mayor Piercy said that she had talked to the proponents of the referral, who indicated to her they were supportive of the City process and work of the advisory group, but did not know what the result would be so wanted to leave themselves with the option “to say yea or nay” to the ultimate proposal. They wanted the ability to respond to the work that went forward. She thought that the manager’s recommendation could satisfy both the developers and the referral proponents. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to reconsider Ordinance 20389, adopted by the council on August 13, 2007. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council instead consider postponing adoption of the ordinance until it had a plan and price tag, as she had proposed on August 13. Mr. Braud asked how the “plan” would be defined. Ms. Bettman defined the “plan” as the agreement signed between the City and developers that identified what the City got and what it paid and what the developer paid. Mr. Klein pointed out that the danger to such an approach would be that a future ordinance could be referred to the voters, causing delays that could threaten the project. Mr. Zelenka believed the petitioners put the council in the position of attempting to articulate the plan “before its time.” Ironically, the options put most at risk were those associated with the Beam project, which was the part of the project the petitioners supported. Ms. Bettman interjected that the City had the money to purchase those properties. Mr. Zelenka said that doing only the Beam project did not work for him. He believed the City needed to transform downtown, which required housing and a critical mass. Merely renovating the Center Court and Washburn buildings brought the City back to a place five years ago when those buildings were fully occupied. He noted that the Beam representative had indicated to the West Broadway Advisory Committee that part of its success depended on the KGW project going forward. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Zelenka suggested that the oil industry could save the community money by delaying a vote until May 2007. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council was told the Beam proposal and Sears housing project could be accomplished without amending the urban renewal district plan. The council had the ability to move forward with downtown revitalization in a reasonable manner by funding that option. She reiterated that there was still time to negotiate options and buy property, and if the public supported the action, the council could always condemn property. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein indicated that the ballot title would include the $40 million figure included in the plan amendment. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend time for the meeting by 10 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark expressed concern that the prices for the properties involved would be higher in the future. He was also concerned about the City’s ability to renegotiate the options. He suggested the council was taking a gamble in assuming that the petitioners would secure the necessary signatures. However, he would support the motion due to the manager’s recommendation of support. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend Ordinance 20389 by adding a new Sec- tion 3 that reads “The provisions of sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall not become ef- fective unless approved by the voters of the city of Eugene at the City election to be held concurrently with the statewide election on November 6, 2007. The motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. The motion to adopt the amended ordinance passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman vot- ing no. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4916, a resolution calling a City election on November 6, 2007, with the purpose of referring to the voters the amended urban renewal plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein indicated that the motion merely referred the ordinance to the voters, not the entire plan. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Klein said that the referendum petitioners could refer the ordinance currently before the council but the referendum of the previous ordinance would not occur. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the city manager to include the urban renewal plan measure as part of the voter’s pamphlet, and to appoint councilors Ortiz, Clark, and Poling to the proponents committee. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 15, 2007 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon September 10, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy extended an invitation to the public to participate in a community forum on September 17, 2007, to comment on the recruitment and selection of the new city manager. She said she had attended an event celebrating Eugene's receipt of a Forest Legacy grant that would enable the City to work with a private landowner to preserve over 24 acres of white oak habitat. She commended a successful Eugene Celebration, particularly the Sustainability Village feature. She also attended the kickoff of the 2008 marathon. Mr. Pryor expressed his sympathy to the family of the child killed on Bailey Hill Road last week. He said that a neighborhood meeting was planned to discuss real solutions to the hazards in that area. He said the Human Services Commission continued to work on a sustainable organizational model and he would provide an update when more information was available. He reported that the West Eugene Collaborative subcommittees had been busy and he would report on that effort and how it interfaced with the City and Lane Transit District later in the month. He also commended the Eugene Celebration. Mr. Zelenka stated that the West Broadway Advisory Committee had finished its work and the report could be found on the City's website. He thanked committee members for their efforts. He noted there would be more opportunities for public input on the redevelopment of West Broadway. Mr. Clark attended the graduation for Fire and EMS #9 and was proud to be a witness to the ceremony. He thanked and congratulated the members of the West Broadway Advisory Committee. He also enjoyed the Eugene Celebration. Ms. Taylor displayed a newspaper article about State workers now receiving a living wage and looked forward to City workers having a living wage. She stated that some people were bothered by the sound of skateboards late at night and wondered if that was covered by any ordinance. She conveyed a request from a citizen for the total amount of money spent on the West Broadway redevelopment project, including meetings, facilitators, consultants, the advisory committee, and purchase options. She was disappointed MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 1 Work Session when she attended the last meeting of the advisory committee and the five people who signed up to speak were not given three minutes. She felt that was disrespectful and discouraged community involvement. Mr. Poling reported that construction of Willakenzie Park continued. He said a citizen was concerned about the safety of homes in the area whose backyards faced the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) property and it was promptly addressed by both EWEB and the Oregon Department of Transportation. He said the EmX Steering Committee had appointment members to the Pioneer Parkway corridor subcommittee and the West Eugene corridor subcommittee; membership represented a balance among neighborhood representatives, the Steering Committee, and local governments. He said a survey of ridership before and after EmX service began showed that the typical decline in ridership during summer months was signifi- cantly less on EmX than across the system or on Route 11. He said two community dialogues on the West Eugene corridor were planned in October and December. Ms. Ortiz also enjoyed the Eugene Celebration and said she had spent some time at both the Human Rights Center and the Police Auditor's Office, which was a very welcoming place. She was continuing to work on railroad yard pollution issues and received a letter from Representative Peter DeFazio stating he had contacted the railroad and federal agencies about solvents in the groundwater and was waiting for a response. She said that the problem of trains idling was also being investigated. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones thanked staff and City department for their efforts during a very busy summer. B. WORK SESSION: McKenzie-Willamette Plan Amendments/Zone Change Update Ms. Jones introduced City Attorney Emily Jerome and Senior Planner Alissa Hansen to discuss the process related to the applications submitted by McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. Ms. Hansen said the purpose of the work session was to review procedural issues and respond to any questions to help prepare the council for the public hearing on October 23, 2007. She said that McKenzie- Willamette submitted concurrent land use applications to the City for a Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment, a Willakenzie Area Plan amendment and policy addition and a rezone of the property. She said the Planning Commission held a public hearing, deliberated, and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council; that recommendation would be provided to the council prior to the October public hearing. She noted that all of The Register-Guard articles, editorials, and letters to the editor on the subject of McKenzie-Willamette published since the submittal dates of the applications would be added to the record, along with copies of McKenzie-Willamette’s newsletters and emails forwarded to her from the council. She asked that councilors and the mayor continue to forward any emails related to McKenzie-Willamette. Ms. Jerome discussed ex parte contacts and acknowledged the difficulties councilors would encounter trying to avoid those contacts. She asked that councilors commit those contacts to a written list, which would be disclosed during the public hearing and help councilors track contacts. She asked that those lists be provided to her or Ms. Hansen no later that October 15 so they could be included in the agenda item summary (AIS). She asked councilors to track any other contacts between that date and the public hearing in order to disclose them at the hearing. She cautioned that it would become more difficult after the hearing as the opportunity for disclosure had passed and procedures would need to be altered to allow the public to rebut. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark asked if Eugene Weekly articles and letters to the editor would be included in the record. Ms. Jerome said if any of the councilors had read Eugene Weekly articles, the substance would need to be in the record. In response to questions from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jerome said any councilors having ex parte contacts between October 15 and the public hearing would disclose those contacts at the hearing, in addition to the written disclosures that would be included in the AIS. She said the purpose of disclosure was to provide the public with the substance of those contacts so there was an opportunity to rebut that information. Mr. Zelenka asked if councilors would need to disclose reading Register-Guard or Eugene Weekly articles if they were in the record. He also asked for guidance on which conversations should be disclosed. Ms. Jerome said it was only necessary to indicate that articles had been read; specific articles and dates did not need to be specified as they would all be in the record. She said that conversations with staff were excluded, but all others had to be disclosed along with any site visits. She said if the conversation related to information or opinion, it had to be disclosed, although it was only necessary to relate the substance of the conversation; specific names and dates were not required. She said to err on the side of over-inclusion was preferred as the purpose was to ensure that the public was fully aware of the substance of all relevant communications. Mr. Poling asked about disclosure of television programs or emails to the mayor and council. Ms. Jerome said the substance of any programs a councilor viewed should be disclosed and any emails should be forwarded to her or Ms. Hansen if they were read. Regarding site visits, Mr. Poling said that he drove in the vicinity of Beltline and Delta Highway frequently and it was unavoidable to think of traffic issues, whether related to the hospital or not. He asked if playing golf on the property would be considered a site visit. Ms. Jerome replied that she did not believe driving or playing golf in the area would be a basis for remand if it was not disclosed, but it was preferable to disclose it. Ms. Bettman remarked that not all conversations regarding McKenzie-Willamette were relevant and asked Ms. Jerome to define the discrete topic that constituted ex parte contact and would need to be disclosed. Ms. Jerome said the contact would need to concern the land use applications. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome said just reading the subject line of an email or a newspaper headline would not need to be disclosed. Mr. Pryor asked if every conversation he had with a McKenzie-Willamette employee had to be disclosed or only those that related to the applications. Ms. Jerome replied that only those specific to the land use applications needed to be disclosed. She said that when the council reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations and saw the criteria and policies that would apply, that could jog someone’s memory about a conversation they initially thought was not subject to disclosure. Mayor Piercy said that occasionally she had been in situations where she could not avoid hearing a discussion of McKenzie-Willamette. Ms. Jerome said dates and locations were not important; it was the substance of those communications that had to be disclosed so that everyone was on an equal footing with respect the information. Mr. Clark said he had been diligent in trying to avoid ex parte contacts, but asked what he should do if he suddenly remembered a contact he had overlooked in his disclosure. Ms. Jerome said that needed to be MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 3 Work Session disclosed when the information was recollected. She urged councilors to make every effort to disclose all contacts before the public hearing; disclosures after the public opportunity to rebut it had not met the spirit of the law. She also emphasized the need to limit contacts following the hearing and during deliberations. Ms. Bettman asked about disclosure of information that was not about the discrete topic, but might affect decision-making. Ms. Jerome replied that the court might look at that issue, but at this point in the process councilors could not be certain what information might affect decision-making. She advised being as inclusive as possible when making disclosures, but contacts that had no substance were not an issue. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Jerome said that contacts on or after April 19, 2006, were subject to disclosure and that included any contacts that he or Mr. Clark might have had prior to being on the council. She would assist them in addressing that issue. Ms. Jerome said there were actual and potential conflicts of interest and she was not aware of any circumstances that would create an actual conflict for any member of the council. Regarding potential conflicts, she noted that Mr. Pryor’s wife had been employed by McKenzie-Willamette, but because she no longer was, there did not appear to be any potential or actual conflict of interest. She said there could be allegations that Mr. Pryor might be biased in the matter and asked if he felt he could be fair and impartial. Mr. Pryor stated he believed he could be fair and impartial. Ms. Jerome noted that Ms. Ortiz could have a potential conflict of interest as a current employee of PeaceHealth. She said that information needed to be on the record and asked if Ms. Ortiz felt she might be biased. Ms. Ortiz indicated she felt she could be fair and impartial. Ms. Jerome determined that no councilors felt unable to be fair and impartial. Ms. Solomon noted that she had served on a number of committees related to PeaceHealth and chaired the Children’s Miracle Network Auction. She asked if those posed a conflict of interest. Ms. Jerome said there was no actual conflict as Ms. Solomon was not paid for her efforts and as long as that information was in the record and Ms. Solomon felt she could be fair and impartial, there was no concern. Mr. Poling said he was on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, which had properties that might be purchased, and asked if that constituted a conflict or bias. Ms. Jerome said that did not need to be declared but she encouraged him to put that information on the record. Mr. Clark stated he had been contacted by people on both sides of the issue and wondered if that could be considered to have created a bias. Ms. Jerome asked if Mr. Clark felt he could be fair and impartial. Mr. Clark stated he could be fair and impartial. Mr. Zelenka asked if conversations among councilors or the fact that someone had been a patient at McKenzie-Willamette had to be disclosed. Ms. Jerome said that conversations did not need to be disclosed unless substantive information not in the record was conveyed. She said that being a patient did not create bias. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked for clarification for the distinction between bias and conflict. Ms. Jerome said there were statutes about conflict of interest; bias was the subject of case law and not statutory. Ms. Bettman asked if having worked for one of the facilities 18 years ago was a conflict. Ms. Jerome said she was confident that would not be a conflict or bias, but the information could be included in Ms. Bettman’s written statement. Mayor Piercy stated that on the day McKenzie-Willamette announced its decision to locate on the subject property she attended a press conference and spoke in support of having a hospital in Eugene. Ms. Hansen said the record was voluminous and would be available to the council, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendations and a memorandum from staff, at least three weeks before the public hearing. She said there would be one paper copy in the City Council office and each councilor would have an electronic copy. She said that new evidence and testimony would be received at the hearing and there was likely to be a request to leave the record only; staff would provide options for addressing that request. She asked that staff be informed about any new information the council felt would be helpful so that could be provided while the record was still open. She said the public hearing format would allow the applicant and the organized opposition a block of time for their testimony instead of allocating three minutes for each individual. Mr. Clark asked if it was possible for councilors to have access to any claims of bias that had been made in order to respond. Ms. Jerome said that the claims had been identified in an August 9, 2007, memorandum; but if councilors wanted to see the actual content the record was available for review. C. WORK SESSION: City Manager Recruitment Process Ms. Jones introduced Alana Holmes, Human Resources, to provide an update on the city manager recruitment process. Ms. Holmes said she had discussed the recruitment process timeline with Robert Neher of Bennett Yarger and he provided the following estimated schedule: ? ten working days from completion of input to create a recruitment brochure and open recruitment nationwide ? 30 to 45 days to conduct a national search ? two weeks following close of recruitment to screen applicants and discuss the top candidates with the council ? two additional weeks to schedule interviews with candidates based on council direction ? two weeks to conduct background checks on finalists Mayor Piercy listed meetings related to the recruitment on September 12, 17, 18 and 24. Ms. Ortiz said she would be out of town on September 24, but hoped she could participate by telephone. Ms. Solomon noted that discussion of the city manager recruitment had replaced a scheduled process session. She questioned whether 2.5 hours were required for that discussion. Ms. Holmes replied that Mr. Neher had a number of topics to discuss, including the strategic approach to take on the search, identifica- MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 5 Work Session tion of stakeholders to provide feedback, scope of advertisements, details of the recruitment and interview process, and a refined timeline. Mr. Clark said while he understood the need to expedite the recruitment process, he hoped the process session would be rescheduled as soon as possible. Mayor Piercy said it had been rescheduled for October 31, 2007. Mayor Piercy asked if a date had been set for a community panel. Ms. Holmes said the panel would meet on September 18, but she did not have a specific time yet. Mayor Piercy said the council would need to determine who would be invited to be on the panel. She hoped that would happen quickly so invitations could be issued and schedules arranged for September 18. She said that the list of people developed during the police auditor recruitment process had been provided as a starting point. Ms. Solomon said she favored community input, but was not certain about the need for input at that point in the process. She preferred to have community input on candidates. Mr. Clark was also concerned about becoming mired in details during the preliminary part of the process and preferred to have a community dialogue once candidates had been identified. He expressed some concern about the composition of the list of potential community stakeholders. He hoped that the commu- nity panel would represent a balanced perspective. Ms. Bettman commented that the intent of community involvement at the beginning of the process was to ensure that when candidates were identified, they reflected those qualities the community desired in a city manager. She agreed that the panel should be balanced and said that the qualities listed would be reviewed to identify trends. She said if the council felt that the community forum, along with discussions with City employees would be sufficient to obtain the necessary input, she was agreeable to that approach. Mr. Poling said the subcommittee agreed it was important to have community input on desirable qualities for a city manager to guide the council's decision. He said he felt the last city manager recruitment process that used an internal department panel and a citizen panel was a well-balanced approach. He said it was important to emphasize to panelists that the council was looking for help and guidance, but it was ultimately the council's decision. Ms. Taylor felt that the public forum would be sufficient with the understanding that people were free to contact councilors with their thoughts on the process. Mayor Piercy suggested inviting specific individuals to participate in the forum to assure a broad range of perspectives. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mayor Piercy's suggestion to invite people to participate. She said that could be an effective strategy combined with an aggressive media campaign. She thought the city manager's job duties and qualifications should be updated and suggested making that available for public comment. Mayor Piercy summarized that there would be a community forum, with specific individuals invited to participate, instead of a community panel. She said that councilors could invite anyone they wished and asked that they submit names to be added to the list. She said the forum format would allow each person two or three minutes to speak unless the council wanted a different format. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling stated that the subcommittee had begun a list of community interests to be involved, including the Neighborhood Leaders Council, Chamber of Commerce, 4J School District, Friends of Eugene, University of Oregon, Lane Community College and communities of color. Mayor Piercy added that the subcommittee asked Mr. Neher to reach out to the Board of County Commis- sioners and the City of Springfield separately in private conversations. In response to questions from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Holmes summarized that invitations to participate in the forum would be extended, likely by phone, to individuals and organizations on lists from the police auditor recruitment and subcommittee discussions and the media would be used to publicize the forum and opportunity to provide input. She said internal panels would also be part of the input process. Mr. Zelenka suggested adding the University of Oregon to the list of those to be engaged in a private conversation because of the City’s unique and important relationship with the University. Mr. Clark commented that the invitation list should be expanded beyond the list used for the police auditor recruitment. Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz explained that the subcommittee had added many organizations and individuals and councilors could also add names to the list. Ms. Holmes reviewed the scheduled activities: ? September 12 – City Council work session with recruiter ? September 17 – Community forum ? September 18 – City Council debriefing with recruiter ? September 24 – City Council work session to discuss details and finalize candidate brochure Mayor Piercy asked staff to inform those invited to the forum that the city manager job description was available for their review. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones Interim City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 10, 2007 Page 7 Work Session