Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/08/07 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall October 8, 2007 7:30 p.m. 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 regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, cited two quotes, the first of which was “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” The second quote was “the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.” He cited an article by Rachel Weber entitled Equity and Entrepreneurialism: The Impact of Tax Increment Financing on School Finance which examined the case of tax increment financing. Ms. Weber postulated that entrepreneurial policies created conflict between taxing bodies as higher levels of government take on some of the fiscal burden of the redistributed functions. He likened the current debate on the downtown renewal district to the debates that preceded it in the 1980s and earlier. He quoted an article from the newspaper that discussed a developer considering a major retail/theater/restaurant development in the downtown that sought to rejuvenate downtown, printed in 1985. He averred that the only difference between then and now was the date on the calendar and the cast of “characters” involved in the current urban renewal proposals. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, cited Statewide planning goals and guidelines Goal 12 Article 4, which stated that major transportation facilities should avoid dividing neighborhoods. He stated that the thth west side of the City contained an urban social unit. He believed that 6 Avenue and 7 Avenue would be a th good alternative for a westward EmX route. He felt that 13 Avenue was a bad choice. He underscored his feeling that neighborhoods should not be bisected. James R. Seaberry , 1475 Green Acres Road, Space 162, asked the council to consider making a good park for musical performances. He said Springfield’s Island Park had a raised stage and averred that Eugene should have one as well. He felt a stage was needed at Washburne Park for the acoustical and visual benefits of the audience. He related an experience he had while attending a Eugene Symphonic Band concert in a park in which he had difficulty hearing and seeing. He offered to help raise money to build such a stage. He noted that the stage in Island Park cost $55,000 to construct and he anticipated that one could be built today for $75,000. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting David Thor Johnson , 4986 Hunters Glen Drive, suggested that the councilors give themselves a raise. He heard that the City was considering purchasing land for the Ridgeline Trail project outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB). He urged the council not to forget the Beverly/Green properties which could become parks within the UGB. Tom Halferty , 4510 Manzanita Street, echoed Mr. Johnson. He supported the idea of a green “ring around Eugene.” He supported the concept of the Ridges to Rivers and actually acquiring properties. However, he urged the City to acquire the Beverly/Green properties first. He expressed some concern that the properties would be dropped from the slate. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, heard that the City was applying for a Forest Legacy matching grant for land outside of the UGB. She had “worked around the clock” to get people to back the parks bond in 2006. She felt that “many” people voted for it thinking it would be used to purchase the Beverly/Green properties. She averred that it would kill an important funding tool for the Amazon Headwaters acquisition if outside properties were purchased first. She provided pictures of La Jolla, California, landslides to substantiate her belief that building on hillsides was not prudent. Zachary Vishanoff , a resident living on Patterson Street, averred that giving one’s address acted as a deterrent to some people who would otherwise testify. He believed that there would be more citizen engagement now that this requirement had been lifted. He provided the council with copies of an article on historic buildings on the University of Oregon campus, one of which was MacArthur Court. He said there had been discussion of razing that building, which he believed to be very important. He felt that whether the building should be razed should be a “full community decision.” He opined that the University “had a habit” of leaving low-income houses that it owned empty. He declared that it would be “obscene” to leave 25 or 30 homes empty while there would be a need for housing during the 2008 Olympic Trials. He asserted that the University would have to fix them in order to utilize them and that it was unwilling to do so. He called the University a “slum lord” and the retention of vacant housing “strategic degradation.” He wanted to get the council to rethink weighing in on the University’s alleged request for more autonomy from the Oregon university system. Lyndell Wilken , 3065 Whitbeck Boulevard, member of the Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT), stated that her role in the process had been to represent bicyclists in the community with regard to the design concepts for the Crest Drive area roads. She related that she had a good working relationship with the CDCT but she had one concern. She said there had been bicycle lanes included in the design on the uphill sides of Crest Drive by Wayne Morse Ranch and on Friendly Street through the second open house. She felt that when smaller subcommittees composed of “just street-front people” were convened, the bicycle amenities disappeared. She said it was thought that traffic-calming features would be adequate to slow traffic and make it safe for bicyclists. She thought the issues concerning bicyclists had not been adequately addressed. She underscored that both an 18-foot and a 20-foot road looked narrow to a cyclist. She wanted to find a way to get bicycles out of the traffic lane while retaining a “country look.” Robert Newland , 3895 Vine Maple Street, stated that he was the proposed developer of the property at 1360 and 1372 Patterson Street for which action had been scheduled on a Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). He wished to underscore that he had worked diligently to design an architecturally interesting building with balconies and courtyards that would incorporate sustainability features. He predicted the structure would enable residents and the City Council 50 to 100 years from now to look back and be pleased that it was not just another “big box” that would densify the area. He asked that the council MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting grant the MUPTE as he would not be able to develop the building as he had planned it without the exemption. He indicated he would sell the property in that case. Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, believed that the streets in the Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard area were city streets and not country streets. He felt the question of bicyclists had to be addressed. He declared that lane widths were of limited concern to bicyclists in the absence of safe and welcoming bicycle facilities. He was concerned about the manner in which the CDCT used bicycle safety as a way to sell “their argument.” He disputed the argument that making roads narrow would increase traffic safety. He related that he reviewed the study the CDCT had cited in defense of its argument for narrow streets and discovered that the study determined the safest streets to be “narrow streets” and defined those streets as 24 feet wide and that as streets were wider, the accidents increased. He stated that 24 feet would provide 18 feet and a 6 foot bicycle lane. He noted that the “functional value” as stated in the study was safety for all modes and all users, including alternative modes. He reiterated that in this case there was no location for a bicycle except in the traffic lane. He asked the council to consider how an 18-foot road could accommodate two sport utility vehicles and a bicycle. He predicted the bicyclist would have to go into the bioswale. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, continued his ongoing testimony regarding his displeasure with the performance of the Eugene Police Department (EPD). Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Taylor supported Mr. Seaberry’s suggestion that an outdoor stage be constructed in one of the City’s parks. Councilor Zelenka recalled that the idea of building a bandstand had been discussed by the University neighborhood and the Fairmount Neighbors. In response to testimony requesting the City take a stand with the University, he wished to reiterate that the City of Eugene had absolutely no authority over the University of Oregon. He stressed that the University could choose to pursue an eminent domain action and the City could do nothing about it. Councilor Clark welcomed input from Mr. Seaberry. He said he would be pleased to work with him on a project to build an outdoor stage. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - July 23, 2007, City Council Meeting - July 25, 2007, Work Session - August 13, 2007, Work Session - August 15, 2007, Work Session - September 10, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4917 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax th Exemption for the Property Located at 1025 West 7 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Property Account Number 0473015). (St. Vincent DePaul Society of County, Inc.) D. Approval of Sale of Surplus Property on Hilyard Street MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted minutes corrections earlier via e-mail. Mayor Piercy deemed them approved as submitted. She noted that Councilor Poling had submitted a correction as well, also deemed approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC FORUM AND ACTION: Candidate Profile for City Manager Recruitment Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell introduced the subject. He said if the council took action at the present meeting, staff would be able to put the candidate profile into the mail the next week and move the process along. Councilor Bettman reiterated her wish to delete the weather report from the document. She also asserted that there were three redundancies and listed them. Additionally, Councilor Bettman expressed concern that some candidates might not apply for the position if the interviews were not conducted in executive session, as their current employers would become aware of the interview. She had noticed that the County conducted two days of hiring completely in executive session. She wondered if the City could conduct its interviews in executive session. Executive Director of the Human Resources Division, Lauren Chouinard, responded that he thought the recruiter the City hired was adept at his job and would communicate to candidates when it reached the point at which they would come for interviews. He noted that the last recruitment had been kept “under wraps” until the City narrowed it to the last candidate, while Springfield had, in its most recent city manager hiring process, profiled the final five candidates in the city newspaper. Mayor Piercy stated that no one had signed up for the public forum. Councilor Bettman recalled that when the council originally looked at the document there had been two parts to it, one of which was the legal portion on which the contract would be based. She asked what part of the current document constituted the legal language that would ultimately translate into the contract itself. Mr. Chouinard stated that there was not much in the current document that would be legally binding and would be placed into the contract. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that, generally, if there were objective qualifications in the position description, the City would be locked into those qualifications. He averred that the City needed to set the qualifications carefully so it did not get a pool so wide that no one would be screened out; but they also did not want to set such strict qualifications that a leading candidate would not meet them. Councilor Bettman asked when the council would see the contract for the City Manager position. She wanted to know if it would be based on the criteria before them. Mr. Chouinard replied that he would look into it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the candidate profile and job description for the position of City Manager. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: Resolution 4918 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property Located at 1360 and 1372 Patterson Street, Eugene, Oregon (Robert V. Newland, Applicant) Community Development Director Richie Weinman stated that Mr. Newland was a lifelong resident of Eugene and a businessman with no previous experience in housing development. He said Mr. Newland had first contacted the Community Development Division in the spring and had worked closely with staff to “try and do everything right.” He related that Mr. Newland worked with the neighborhood group and had garnered unanimous approval from them for the project. He added that Senior Planner, Ken Guzowski, who was staff liaison for the Historic Review Board indicated to him that the two existing houses on the properties were not of significant historic value. Mr. Weinman reported that staff supported the recommendation. He said that a question was whether the council wished to address the application for the MUPTE at the present meeting or postpone it until after the council work session on the MUPTE program. He underscored that Mr. Newland was concerned about the timing of his project; if he did not complete it in a certain amount of time, it would create financial issues for the project. If the decision on the MUPTE was delayed, Mr. Newland indicated that he would have to decide whether to pursue the project. Councilor Bettman asked what the “discrete subject” of the MUPTE work session was. Mr. Weinman replied that the work session had been requested by the councilors. He said he would review the history of the program at the session. Councilor Bettman asked if there had been a council poll. Mayor Piercy replied that she wanted the council to have this discussion because if different standards were going to be applied for one area then the program needed to be revised to reflect this. Councilor Zelenka recalled that the last MUPTE application that had come before the council was from the campus area and had been voted down. He said this had raised questions about where the boundary for the MUPTE should fall. He felt that without the MUPTE the smaller developers had a difficult time coming up with the equity cash to build the projects, causing them to be pushed out of the marketplace and pushing the development onto larger developers. He was interested in having an indepth discussion of the program at the work session. Councilor Bettman thought it would be prudent for the council to consider whether it should take action on the application before or after the work session first. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve Resolution 4918, a Mul- tiple Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 1360 and 1372 Pat- terson Street. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to postpone the adoption until after the work session. Councilor Solomon believed the applicant had gone through a process and had done “his homework.” It appeared to her that the application met the City’s standards. She felt the development would be the highest and best use of those properties. Additionally, the unanimous support of the West University Neighbors (WUN) for the project carried a lot of weight for her. She did not think that that the timeline should change for Mr. Newland just because the council wished to discuss the MUPTE program in the larger context. Councilor Zelenka asked the council to consider having the discussion first. He did not believe that two weeks would make a big difference in Mr. Newland’s timeline. Councilor Poling could not support postponing the item. He underscored that Mr. Newland followed all of the rules the City had set. He said Mr. Newland should not be punished just because the council had changed its collective mind and decided to revisit the MUPTE program. Councilor Clark opposed postponement. He averred that a delay would create a significant burden for Mr. Newland. He reiterated that the applicant had abided by the rules. He added that the opportunity to have something like this project built in the University area alleviated issues the Rental Housing Program dealt with in “a very common sense way.” He said the rental program worked in the City to alleviate rundown student housing and this was an opportunity to build brand new “state-of-the-art” student housing. Councilor Ortiz also could not support postponement. She felt it would be akin to moving the bar for Mr. Newland. She stressed that he had applied for the MUPTE under the current criteria and if the council said the City would begin processing applications for the program differently starting tomorrow and he applied at that time she would feel differently. Councilor Pryor concurred. He averred that the current MUPTE was adequate. He did not think the discussion the council would have should bear on this particular application. Councilor Taylor declared that the MUPTE was never supposed to be automatic; it was a City Council decision. She opined that there would be development whether the City granted a tax break or not. She felt that just because it was going to be a good project did not mean it should receive the tax exemption. Roll call vote; the motion to postpone failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in favor. Councilor Bettman agreed that Mr. Newland was “a nice man” and the project was a good one. She took issue with the notion of subsidizing student housing. She averred that the concentration of students in the area put a burden on the infrastructure. She thought a lot of construction was happening in the campus area and would continue without the exemption. She opposed giving a tax break for student housing as the vacancy rate was low and it was very profitable. She supported granting a MUPTE in certain neighbor- hoods and under certain circumstances. She did not believe it was justifiable to forego tax dollars needed to provide services in this case. Councilor Zelenka complimented Mr. Newland on his proposal and his outreach to councilors and to the neighborhood. He said the notion that Mr. Newland had followed the rules was “not good enough” for him. He projected the exemption to amount to $340,000 over ten years. He underscored that he wished to ensure MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting that granting a MUPTE to this particular project was the right thing to do. He agreed that housing would be built regardless, but he did not believe it would be of the quality of Mr. Newland’s project. He noted that another applicant with a similar project in the same area had been turned down by the council recently. Councilor Solomon stressed that a MUPTE did not mean there were no taxes paid as the property owner continued to pay taxes on the land value. She believed that it was the responsibility of the councilors to partner in this kind of development and that this project would be important to the City. Councilor Clark acknowledged that the City would forego tax revenue on the improvements to the property for ten years but he wanted to underscore that for the useful life of the building which would extend far beyond the ten years, the City would collect substantially more in revenue than the existing tax revenue. He reiterated that the Rental Housing Program, started in 2006, had arisen because of problems associated with rundown housing predominantly located near campus which “costs $300,000 every year.” He preferred to partner with people who would create new housing that was of a better and higher quality so that the City would retain a higher quality of students at the University and to help build generally better lower-income housing. Councilor Clark said he had heard anecdotally that the market was such that housing was very profitable in the University area and would be built anyway. He had not, however, heard any data to substantiate this. He hoped that for the work session on the MUPTE some research data could be provided to the council for consideration. He understood that the University had conducted this type of housing research and would likely share the resulting data with the City. Councilor Poling pointed out that despite the fact that the project was described as student housing by some, it was located next to Sacred Heart Hospital, commercial areas, and the EmX route. He also noted that the developer planned to build three-bedroom units - units that were more suitable for families. He did not agree that the project was intended specifically for University housing. Councilor Bettman declared that the project was student housing. She asserted that families had been “fleeing” the area “for ages.” She averred that the area was noisy and the population there was transient. She reiterated her opposition to the tax exemption. She said the City would be foregoing taxes it needed for the budget. Councilor Zelenka recounted his personal survey of the University area, in which he perceived that developments were being built in the area regardless of whether they received a tax exemption or not. He questioned how one could know if a development could be built without a MUPTE. He said the answer was difficult to determine because they did not have the metrics. He suggested that the council consider having some standards to ensure that they were getting the kind of development they wanted given that the tax exemption was tantamount to “giving them an enormous amount of money.” He added that it would not “break [his] heart” to see Mr. Newland’s project go forward. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to bring information to the work session on how the council could tell if the market was creating the conditions, the history of the MUPTE program in that neighborhood, how many developments had occurred, and how many of them had been given the exemption. He asked how the council’s denial or approval of a MUPTE affected the nature of development in the area. He also wanted to know what the City could legally require of developers in order to be granted a MUPTE, such as the inclusion of building elements that were sustainable. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy commented that if it was “more of a blah blah blah project” she would be inclined to put off approval. She stated that the larger discussion would be whether or not the council wanted to support the development of more student housing. And, if the council did want to support it, would there be qualitative standards for the development? She said it sounded like the council was still operating under its overarching values, which included encouraging the construction of housing in the University area as well as other areas. But if this was not the case, she thought the council should acknowledge it and change its policies governing the MUPTE. Councilor Taylor remarked that the project sounded great to her. She asked if the council was going to grant all people who were building “something that is nice” a tax exemption. She said the City could not run without taxes. Councilor Bettman declared that it was not a question of whether the council supported student housing, it was a question of geography. She reiterated her willingness to provide MUPTE for student housing if it was located downtown. Councilor Bettman recalled that there used to be a standard that gave “extra points” on the application if the development included low-income housing but it had been taken out of the program. She reiterated her feeling that just because the development was within the boundary of the tax break did not mean the council should grant it injudiciously. She said one thing that concerned her about the applications was that there was no independent audit to determine if the developer really could not build the project without a MUPTE. She asked if there was a standard of what the building should cost per unit and whether or not the numbers were defensible in comparison with other projects. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Zelenka, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Municipal Court Sentencing Authority for Violations of Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Acting Assistant City Manager Luell introduced Judge Wayne Allen. Judge Allen reminded the council that he had been before it on September 10 and received direction to clarify the intent of some of the language. He said the reference to the court’s ability to suspend the sentence had been stricken as the court already had that ability. He stated that the reason there was a suspended sentence portion in the language was to give the council some level of reassurance that the court would look at a person’s financial ability when ordering treatment. Judge Allen explained that the court may suspend a sentence for a person who had a financial challenge to comply with the treatment or education. He also stated that the court wanted to have the authority to order treatment or education. He related that with the increasing number of violations it seemed inappropriate to only have the ability to impose a fine, specifically for minors in possession of alcohol. He related that he saw an increasingly younger population driving under the influence and, earlier in the day, he had seen 10 cases of people driving under the influence of intoxicants in his courtroom, eight of whom were under the age of 22. Judge Allen commented that this was “not how it used to be.” He believed that some kind of education would be helpful. Councilor Bettman thanked staff for the clarification of the language. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt the ordinance amending Eugene Code 4.990 as reflected in Option B to allow for expanded judicial authority to or- der any treatment as deemed necessary for the rehabilitation of the offender and safety of the community. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Grant Application for Acquisition of Ridgeline Trail Property Acting Assistant City Manager Luell stated that Parks and Open Space Planning Manager, Carolyn Weiss, would introduce the item. Ms. Weiss explained that Parks and Open Space Division (POS) staff had sought approval from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to apply for grant funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) to acquire additional properties along the Ridgeline Trail Corridor. She said there was not unanimous support for the grant application at the CCIGR so it was brought before the full council. She stated that a grant application had been approved and had been submitted on October 1 for Federal Forest Legacy funding, also for properties along the Ridgeline Trail. She related that at the time of the CCIGR approval, the City’s match for the grant had been proposed to be 25 percent of the total. Subsequent to this, she had been advised that the application would be more competitive if the City could match at the 50 percent rate. In order to do this, staff was proposing the additional grant application to OWEB to offset it and keep Eugene’s match at 25 percent. Ms. Weiss described three potential scenarios: ? The City could gain approval for both grants for approximately $3 million and the City’s match would be approximately $1 million. ? The Forest Legacy grant could be approved and the OWEB grant could not gain approval which would likely increase the City’s level of matching funds or the City would have to try to get funding from another source or the City could withdraw its request for funding from the Forest Legacy. ? The OWEB grant funding could be approved and the Forest Legacy funding could not be approved in which case the City could try to determine if there were other sources for financing available of it could withdraw its request to OWEB for funding. Councilor Ortiz commented that she was puzzled about why this item was coming forward in the face of the council’s direction to pursue the purchase of the Beverly/Green properties. She asked if staff was working on that acquisition. Ms. Weiss responded that the appraisal process was underway to understand the values of those properties. This project was happening simultaneously with the pursuit of acquisition of properties that meet the Ridgeline Trail criteria and with finding ways to leverage bond measure money with other sources as much as possible. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Lidz explained that staff would be before the council with regard to the Beverly/Green properties when the appraisals were complete. He underscored that prior to knowing the cost it was difficult to bring discussion to the table regarding funding sources. Councilor Bettman asked if the three properties for which the grant application was made had been appraised. Ms. Weiss responded that they had not yet been appraised. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman asked if there was documentation to prove that the City’s grant application would be more competitive if there was a 50 percent match. Ms. Weiss replied that the advice had come in conversa- tions staff had been party to after a training staff had attended in Portland. Councilor Bettman ascertained from Ms. Weiss that the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Bond contained $2 million dedicated to the Golden Gardens Park. She asked how much more the additional acreage that was being purchased allegedly for the potential move of the county fairgrounds. Ms. Weiss responded that the POS division was not exceeding the $2 million bond money for the Golden Gardens Park. Councilor Bettman commented that now the City was getting 300 acres for $2 million, whereas before it was purchasing 100 acres for that amount of money. She called that a “huge discrepancy in numbers.” She asked how the City could do this. Ms. Weiss replied that she believed that there were additional funding sources that could be used for that park, such as systems development charges (SDCs). Councilor Bettman ascertained from Ms. Weiss that SDCs were also available for the Beverly/Green properties. She asserted that people voting for the bond did not know that land was being purchased with the money with the thought in mind that the land could eventually be purchased by the County. She opined that this was a misuse of that money. She said she would support the grant application at the 25 percent level, as agreed upon at the CCIGR. She did not support leveraging additional grant money for land outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) when there was land within the UGB that the City wished to purchase. She feared that money spent on the land outside the UGB would deplete funding and threaten the purchase of the Beverly/Green properties. Councilor Clark said as an effort of good faith he would be willing to not support the item in order to make sure that the council would bear in mind while working on the acquisition of the Beverly/Green properties that a promise of a community park had been made to the people of Santa Clara since 1998. He did not want to see more money spent from the bond funds without this being assured. Councilor Taylor averred that money was already set aside for Santa Clara. She believed that the acquisition of the Beverly/Green properties should be the City’s top priority. She did not think the properties should cost $7 million. She asked if the council could approve the item contingent on receiving the grant. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Taylor, Ms. Weiss affirmed that the City could back out of the funding if the cost of the land proved to be more than $4 million. Councilor Taylor favored the application but felt that the acquisition of the Beverly/Green properties was more important. She observed that there would be approximately $6 million left in the PROS funds and asked if that would be enough to purchase the properties. Ms. Weiss responded that she could not say at this point. Councilor Taylor asked if SDC funds were being diverted from the acquisition of those properties by the Golden Gardens Park project. Ms. Weiss replied that there was approximately $2.5 million available in SDCs at present. Councilor Taylor asked who made the decision to apply SDC funds to that project. Ms. Weiss surmised that it was a staff decision made by executive management. Councilor Pryor thought it would be difficult to get the Forest Legacy grant at the higher level. He wanted the grant request to go through. He underscored that the City had sent a lobbyist to Salem to lobby for MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Eugene to be able to purchase land outside the UGB. He felt that for the City to “suddenly decide” it was not a good idea was disingenuous. He said part of the reason the City lobbied for this was because of the Ridgeline Trail, as it was important enough that the City was willing to purchase land outside of the UGB for it. He ascertained from Ms. Weiss that the properties that were the subjects of the grant application were located on the ridgeline. He believed everything before the council at present was consistent with what the City indicated it wanted to do. He did not understand how this grant application could be considered to be “outside reasonable or directional or what the City’s established that it wants to do.” He recalled that the 2006 PROS measure said funding was intended to purchase land, preserving natural open places near the Ridgeline Trail, Willamette River, and Gillespie Butte. He underscored that the item before the council fit that description. He said he would love to give staff the opportunity to go for the additional OWEB grant but he was not certain there were the votes to do so. He believed the item was consistent with what the City had said it wanted to do and to decide to pursue another course was not fair or reasonable. He reiterated that this was what the City said it would do in the bond measure; this was what the City said it would do as a matter of policy; and the properties were on the Ridgeline Trail corridor. Ms. Weiss clarified that the Forest Legacy grant had been submitted at the 50 percent level on October 1. Councilor Zelenka complained that the council had not been consulted about the change in the level of the grant. He asked if the OWEB grant could be used to help purchase the Beverly/Green properties. Ms. Weiss replied that the grant money could not be used under a condemnation proceeding. Councilor Zelenka asked if the OWEB grant money could be utilized if there were willing sellers. Ms. Weiss responded that this would be possible if the land was being purchased at the appraised value. Councilor Zelenka asserted that the Beverly/Green properties were located on the Ridgeline Trail corridor. He agreed with Councilor Ortiz that it was puzzling that the City was putting effort and creativity into getting money for the Ridgeline Trail properties when there was clear direction from the council to put effort into the purchase of the properties inside the UGB. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen if the City did not receive the OWEB grant. Ms. Weiss replied that it would not impact the Santa Clara park project because it was in a different category of funding. She noted that there was also funding set aside from the 1998 bond measure for Santa Clara. She stated that it was as yet unknown whether it would affect the Beverly/Green parcels because the cost of the parcels was not known. She reiterated that if the City did not receive the OWEB grant, the City would be faced with the choice of pursuing other sources of funding or deciding not to pursue the acquisition of the Ridgeline parcels. Councilor Zelenka asked what staff would do in the absence of “clear council direction” on how to move forward at that point. Ms. Weiss responded that staff would come before the council for direction. Councilor Zelenka thought the Beverly/Green properties would likely be purchased using moneys designated for parcels near the Ridgeline Trail. He felt the City was somewhat “stuck” because to say no to the OWEB grant would mean the City would have to pay $2 million for the Ridgeline parcels and to say “yes” meant the City would have to pay $1 million. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Weiss confirmed that the money from the 1998 and 2006 bonds that was dedicated for a park in the Santa Clara area may not be used for other projects. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting clarified that the legal language of the bond did not attach funding amounts to the different categories of parks, but how it had been communicated to the voters did attach funding amounts to the categories. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Clark, City Attorney Jerome Lidz said he had not reviewed the bond language recently and should not answer the question posed to Ms. Weiss at this time. Councilor Clark surmised that the money was set aside and intended for the purpose of building a park in the Santa Clara area and that it had been sold to the voters with that in mind, but it was within legal parameters for the City to change its collective mind. Councilor Bettman recalled that the CCIGR unanimously approved the application for the Forest Legacy to include a City match of 25 percent. She asked why staff had “unilaterally upped it to 50 percent.” Ms. Weiss explained that staff was trying to put together the most competitive application possible and trying to stay within the spirit of what was determined in the CCIGR. She said staff knew there would be another chance to come before the CCIGR. Councilor Bettman called this a major inconsistency. She wondered what the purpose was of coming before the CCIGR if staff would make a “completely different decision and unilaterally allocate $1 million” in PROS funding. She averred that councilors should stand up and demand “some kind of accountability.” In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Weiss clarified that the amount of money for the City’s match had been reduced from $1.678 million to $1 million because a couple of the properties had been dropped from consideration for acquisition leaving two. Councilor Bettman accused staff of circumventing the direction of CCIGR to go with the 25 percent match. She asked when the results of the grant applications would be known. Ms. Weiss responded that the OWEB grant application result would be known in early spring and the Forest Legacy tended to be known in early March. Councilor Bettman asked how long the City would have to withdraw the Forest Legacy application. Ms. Weiss replied that this could be done at any time. Councilor Bettman asked when it would be known whether the Forest Legacy application was accepted or rejected. Ms. Weiss responded that the City would know whether the application was moved on to the next phase in the next two months. Councilor Pryor suggested that such a change in a grant application after approval be related to the CCIGR in the future, whether by email or otherwise. He said there were two choices: support the grant or withdraw the application. He had no reason not to support the grant. He commented that it was “too bad” the council was faced with this situation but he believed it was still a good purchase and would hate to withdraw the entire application. He added that he favored the Beverly/Green properties but for him the key element was that he wanted to purchase from a willing seller. He was not convinced that the Ridgeline acquisition was related to it. Councilor Zelenka asked what the deadline was for the application for the OWEB grant. Ms. Weiss replied that it was due October 15. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Weiss replied that the land in the Ridgeline acquisition ranged from $10,000 to $15,000 per acre. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to get that information specifically for each property. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said she wanted to amend the motion so that the City only budgeted for the 25 percent match and if the OWEB grant did not come through the grant application to the Forest Legacy would be withdrawn. She reiterated her unhappiness with staff regarding the change in the grant application. She commented that she was prepared to vote no altogether because she did not want to “reinforce bad behavior.” She said she would try to amend the motion instead. Councilor Ortiz moved to approve the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and associ- ated matching fund plan. Councilor Bettman asked to make a friendly amendment to revise the language to state that the council would approve the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant request with a 25 percent local match, budgeted for $1.1 million, and to direct staff to withdraw the Forest Legacy application should the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant not be ap- proved. Councilor Pryor provided a second. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 7. ACTION: Oregon MPO Consortium Legislative Policy Concepts and Objectives Mayor Piercy called Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager for the Public Works Department, to the podium to explain the Oregon Metropolitan Planning Organization Consortium (OMPOC) legislative policy concepts and objectives document. Mr. Inerfeld stated that the OMPOC advanced interests common to Oregon’s designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). He said as the MPO for the Eugene/Springfield Metro area the Metropoli- tan Policy Committee (MPC) was a member of OMPOC. He reported that OMPOC was seeking feedback from the MPC on its draft legislative policy concepts and objectives document and the MPC requested that its member governments provide comment on it. He noted that the CCIGR reviewed “a few versions” of the document. He related that the draft was intended to serve as a guide for the OMPOC legislative agenda. He added that the OMPOC summit scheduled for the following weekend had been postponed until 2008. Councilor Bettman thought the document should reflect the TransPlan policies and the policies that the City adopted into its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) specifically that the City wanted to prioritize and fund preservation and maintenance of the existing road system. She did not think the document reflected that this was the City’s highest priority for funding. She wanted a bullet point that had been taken out of the document to be restored that said a transportation funding package that provided equitable shares to counties and cities should be advocated for and supported. She said she would add “and adequate resources”’ after “equitable shares” to the previous. She suggested that the reference to maintenance and preservation of roads should include local infrastructure because the money came from the gas tax. She averred that the City of Eugene needed to be able to use its gas tax money for maintenance and preservation. Continuing, Councilor Bettman cited a bullet point that said “advocate and support efforts to increase the capacity and efficiency of the public transit system in Oregon” and suggested that the words “and fund” be added after “support.” She stated that there was nothing in the document that discussed access management. She noted that the document said at the top “Oregonians need to strategically invest in all modes of MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 13 Regular Meeting transportation” and suggested that it be changed to include the words “equitably and proportionally” after the word “invest.” She said 20 percent of the population did not drive and predicted the numbers would increase as baby boomers aged. Councilor Taylor stated that she had responded by email. She indicated that she was in agreement with Councilor Bettman. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting