Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 14, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 4A 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 October 15, 2007, Public Hearing, October 17, 2007, Work Session, October 22, 2007, Work Session, October 31, 2007, Work Session, and November 13, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.October 15, 2007, Public Hearing B.October 17, 2007, Work Session C.October 22, 2007, Work Session D.October 31, 2007, Work Session E.November 13, 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\2008 Council Agendas\M080114\S0801144A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 15, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 4919, a Resolution Concerning Streets Widths in the Crest Drive Area, and Amending the City's Design Standards and Guidelines for the Eugene Streets Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, and the Eugene Local Street Plan Ms. Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. Sue Wolling , 85219 South Willamette Street, Eugene, remarked that the width of the streets was less important than the breadth of the project's vision. She said the process was driven by context sensitive design, but had not been sufficiently broad in terms of encompassing transportation options, particularly non-motorized options. She said it was unconscionable to build a street without specific facilities for bicycles. She said the Eugene Bicycle Coalition had suggested a street design that would accommodate bicyclist safely with minimal impact on the surrounding landscape. She urged the City to build a road for the future that included bicycles. Julie Redner , 2899 Friendly Street, Eugene, voiced her strong support for maintaining the traffic lanes on Friendly Street at 18 feet. She said that narrower streets provided a measure of traffic calming that was necessary in the area. She was also concerned about the increased cost of a wider road because she owned a shallow, but wide lot and her assessment could be as high $25,000. She agreed that bicycle and pedestrian safety was important, but she was being asked to pay additional costs for people who did not live in the area. Chuck Craytor , 3217 Whitten Drive, Eugene, thanked the City staff involved in the Crest Drive area street design. He felt an 18-foot width would be a better deterrent to speed than a wider street with speed bumps. He encouraged the council to approve the 18-foot width to preserve the beauty and character of the neighborhood. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing Len Bailey , 2932 Friendly Street, Eugene, said he would be assessed for street improvements. He described the process involved in developing a context sensitive design and defining the core themes and values of the Crest Drive neighborhood. He said design decisions had to support those themes and values, including traffic calming, preservation of the neighborhood's rural character and safety. He said the proposed 18-foot street width spoke to those values. Cathryn Treadway , 2820 Friendly Street, Eugene, vice-chair of the Crest Drive Citizens' Association, read a statement from the chair regarding the association's support for nine-foot travel lanes. That width would maintain the unique rural character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. She said that her property would be assessed. John Rude , 1207 Courtney Place, Eugene, stated that his property would be assessed. He reiterated the citizen association's support for 18-foot street widths. He said City staff had dishonored the context sensitive design solution process by advocating for 20-foot widths. He emphasized the importance of 18- foot street widths to preserving the integrity of the Crest Drive neighborhood environment and urged the council's support. Sherie Hawley , 3484 Storey Boulevard, Eugene, said her property would be assessed. She explained the 18-foot street widths were vital because that had been the street width in that neighborhood for 100 years, that width would slow cars down, the new construction would add four to five feet of pavement in addition to the travel lane and could not be accommodated if the travel lanes were wider. She noted that other area in the community and other communities in the state had 18-foot street widths without jeopardizing safety. Christine Sullivan , 1207 Courtney Place, Eugene, said her property would be assessed. She said using a context sensitive design process in the Crest Drive neighborhood had been very challenging because of the complex issues involved. She said there were other more desirable routes for bicycles to take to rural areas and the steep incline in the neighborhood discouraged most bicycle traffic; that would not change if the roadways were wider. She urged support for 18-foot street widths as the best solution for all transportation modes, including bicycles. Christina Gryce , 895 Crest Drive, Eugene, said her property was at the corner of Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard and would be impacted by improvements on both streets. She said the cost of improvements would be high and the greatest percentage of that cost was construction. She said maintaining 18-foot travel lanes would help to contain cost and conserve resources. Barbara Donovan , 885 Crest Drive, Eugene, commented that maintaining the neighborhood environment was a strong value during the design process and it was challenging to balance the needs of all street users with preservation of neighborhood. She said widening travel lanes and adding sidewalks to a 100-year- old road would threaten trees, vegetation, stream corridors and wildlife habitat. She said the 18-foot width would also have a larger footprint than the current roads, but would afford better protection of the environment. Jo Warren , Friendly Street, Eugene, said the estimated street assessments were some of the highest ever seen and she would be unable to afford them. She implored the council to listen to the neighborhood and maintain the nine-foot travel lanes. She questioned why the City would consider widening roads and encouraging more cards. She thanked those who had worked on the context sensitive design process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing Fred Long , 810 Crest Drive, Eugene, said he was an assessed property owner, a member of the design team and a bicyclist who commuted to work and rode recreationally. He said that bicycle accessibility and safety was an important consideration during the design process and the Eugene Bicycle Coalition was involved throughout; recent concerns were expressed primarily by one individual and not based on accurate information. He said designated bike lanes were not well suited to streets in the neighborhood and increased street widths would mean increased car speeds. He urged support for narrower, safer streets. Desiree Rogers , 3131 Storey Boulevard, Eugene, said she was an assessed property owner. She was opposed to designing Crest Drive area roads like West Broadway or Willamette Street. She said the proposal for 18-foot street widths would calm traffic, allow for shared driveways and be consistent with traffic volume. Virginia Starling , 3302 Storey Boulevard, Eugene, remarked that concerns had been raised about school buses, emergency vehicles and garbage trucks traveling on Crest Drive area streets. She pointed out that those vehicles had been traversing the neighborhood's 18-foot streets without incident since the streets were built. She urged the council to leave the neighborhood as its residents wished. Laura Bailey , 2932 Friendly Street, Eugene, said her property would be assessed. She asserted that safety for all residents, pedestrians, emergency vehicles, school buses, commercial vehicles and bicycles was a primary consideration during the design process, along with preservation of the neighborhood character and environment. She said national experts recommended narrow streets for traffic calming and better pedestrian and bicycle safety. She asked the mayor and council to visit the neighborhood and experience the tranquil, rural environment. Frank Calciano , Crest Drive, Eugene, expressed concern with the cost of the project and said narrower street widths would represent a cost savings to the City and residents. He recommended 18-foot street widths and noted that there were neighborhoods throughout the community with narrow streets and the current design standards would present problems for them as well. He said approval of the Crest Drive neighborhood's request for 18-foot street widths could be an example to other neighborhoods facing similar design challenges. Hal Huestis , Friendly Street, Eugene, said his property would be assessed for the project. He pointed out that the proposed street designs for the neighborhood were all different to accommodate each street's unique features and issues and preserve neighborhood character. He said that all designs included a sidewalk on one side, solved draining issues and provided traffic calming. He urged support for 18-foot widths and the unique street designs. Meg Stewart Smith , 346 Crest Drive, Eugene, said her property would be assessed. She spoke to the spiritual values of the design team and how they were expressed in the physical aspect of the road design, particularly the 18-foot width. She hoped the council would support the neighborhood's design proposal. James Reed , Eugene, said he had been a member of the design team and thanked all of those involved in the process. He said technically a 20-foot roadbed would fit, but the issue was not what fit but what was best for the neighborhood. He indicated that livability and neighborhood character were factors in the context MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 3 Public Hearing sensitive design and 18-foot street widths would preserve the character while providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities and traffic calming. Don Neet , 3434 Storey Boulevard, Eugene, said he was on the design team and his property would be assessed. He said Storey Boulevard had the highest traffic speed and steepest grade of all roads in the neighborhood. He said there were limited options for traffic calming and one of them was an 18-foot street width. He said the design process examined problems related to school buses and garbage trucks and concluded there were no issues. Jill Sager , 2945 Friendly Street, Eugene, said she was an assessed property owner. She had lived in the neighborhood for 12 years and walked daily. She felt safe as a pedestrian and appreciated the rural character of the area. She said the wider roadway and sidewalks on the northern end of Friendly Street created an urban environment and that would be inconsistent with the Crest Drive neighborhood character. She urged support for narrower streets. Fred Lorish , Eugene, said his property would be assessed for the project. He reviewed the history of the context sensitive design solutions process and consensus model. He said the themes and values that emerged from that process would be enhanced by narrower roadways and asked for the council's support of 18-foot street widths. Robbin Howard , 3217 Whitten Drive, Eugene, said her property would not be assessed, but she would be affected by the changes. She agreed with previous speakers in support of 18-foot street widths, which would be safer and encouraged physical activity. She did not think that the design should cater to large vehicles when companies could use smaller ones. She preferred not to use scarce resources to promote more vehicle use. Michael Boutette , 2970 Friendly Street, Eugene, said his property would be assessed. He supported 18- foot street widths and had seen no evidence that the current streets presented problems for emergency vehicles. He said narrower streets would preserve the rural character of the neighborhood, which is what drew many residents to the area, and would also slow traffic. He did not want to see the neighborhood subjected to a "cookie cutter" design. Paul Moor , 2586 Potter Street, Eugene, stated he had previously lived on Mary Lane and had frequently biked the streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood. He distributed a drawing of the proposed street design and said that 9- and 10-foot travel lanes would not safely accommodate a car and bicycle at the same time. He also distributed a petition from neighborhood residents and non-residents opposing narrower streets. Eric Selker , 3765 University Street, Eugene, commented on the wide range of bicycle accommodations across Europe. He said that in those areas where people used bicycles extensively the primary factor was safety, not the weather. He did not believe that a nine-foot travel lane without a bicycle accommodation was a good idea and protection from cars would be provided at leave for those going uphill. Jeanne Selker , 2765 University Street, remarked that the steepness of the street was irrelevant; bicyclists needed and would use a delineated travel lane that was smooth, whether it was a bike lane or sidewalk. She said that bicycles should not have to be part of the vehicle traffic. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 4 Public Hearing Chris Stine , 350 Fulvue Drive, Eugene, stated he was a bicycle commuter and also drove the Crest Drive neighborhood roads. He said any design should incorporate a safe bicycle lane for rider safety and to promote the City sustainability initiative by promoting alternate modes of transportation. He said that the safety of children biking and walking to school should also be a major consideration. Robert Hutchings , 515 Fulvue Drive, Eugene, said he was not affected by the assessment, but was an avid bicyclist and from his perspective the neighborhood could be even better if the roads were improved. He felt that nine-foot travel lanes would be acceptable if a bike lane could be accommodated, at least for uphill travel. Charles Quinn , 375 Mary Lane, Eugene, stated he was a bike commuter and regularly rode on neighbor- hood streets. He said that navigating those streets on a bike was frightening and regardless of the lane width, there should be accommodations for bicycles. He was also concerned with the safety of those children riding bicycles to school. He felt the process had been biased toward the minority of residents living on the affected streets because of their vested financial interest, but the other residents who used the streets should also be considered. He said that any design should accommodate all uses. Amy Clarke , 3009 Friendly Street, Eugene, expressed concern with the dangerous nature of the streets currently, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. She said that safe accommodations for those users should be a part of any design. Ms. Piercy closed the hearing and thanked those who spoke. Ms. Taylor commended the persistence and hard work of Crest Drive neighborhood residents and urged the council's support for nine-foot travel lanes. She said that bicycles could use the sidewalks planned for pedestrians, especially for uphill travel. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Inset Map D and Text; Amending Section 9.9700 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map; and Adopting a Severability Clause (Summer Oaks/Crescent Center) Ms. Piercy announced that the hearing was a quasi-judicial proceeding and polled the council for conflicts of interest or ex parté contacts. None were declared. She opened the public hearing. Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department, reviewed the applicant's requests for a refinement plan amendment, code amendment and zone change and described the subject property. She said that no development proposal had been submitted and the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on the requests. She said the commission was recommending approval of the requests with two conditions. Ms. Piercy reviewed the rules for providing testimony in a quasi-judicial proceeding. She called for testimony from those in support of the application. George Swift , 1105 Porter Way, Milton, Washington, stated he was the property owner and had been involved in hotel development for many years. His concept for the property was an extended-stay hotel, MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 5 Public Hearing which would have first class accommodations for long-term stays. He said the hotel would have 115 units, contribute to the vibrancy of the area and provide needed lodging when the new hospital opened. He asked the council to support the application and requested amendments and zone change. Aaron Murray , 1105 Porter Way, Milton, Washington, said his role was to oversee permitting and construction for the anticipated development of a hotel on the site. He said an extended stay hotel, with a typical stay of 13 days, had less of an impact on the environment because linens were washed once a week instead of daily and no disposable dinnerware or utensils were used. He said hotel residents would have a positive impact as pedestrians on the built environment and generate a need for goods and services in the area. Mike Edwards , 2580 Edgewater Drive, Eugene, explained that he was the owner of a business currently located on Greenacres Road and a new facility planned for the Suzanne Way property would accommodate multiple uses and was well situated for ease of transportation access. Teresa Bishow , 871 Country Club Road, Eugene, speaking for Arlie and Company, distributed a colored version of a map included in the agenda packet. She said that approval of the ordinance would implement the Metro Plan as the subject property was designated as commercial in the plan and included within the Crescent nodal development area and would implement council goals for nodal development areas; approval would not convert residential land or open space to commercial. She said the rezone allowing a hotel would increase evening activity in the area. She said the ordinance would result in minor changes to the Willa- kenzie plan and only two lots were affected; those lots would change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. She said approval would also recognize that the City's approval of Crescent Village had shifted in that mixed use project the location of key neighborhood commercial services to the heart of the node within easier walking distance of the high density neighborhood. She urged the council's support for the application. Brian Genovese , 4765 Village Plaza Loop, Eugene, principal traffic engineer representing the applicant, said the traffic analysis conducted for the application included the entitled uses under the approved Summer Oaks planned unit development (PUD) compared to the proposed uses. He said the approved uses for the PUD were anticipated to generate approximately 1,900 daily trips, with 234 trips occurring in the PM peak hour; the proposed zone change would accommodate a mix of proposed uses that would generate less than 1,600 daily trips with 213 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. He emphasized that the proposed uses would generate fewer daily and PM peak hour trips than the currently approved uses, which equated to less impact on the transportation system. Greg Brokaw , 114 High Street, Eugene, architect, spoke to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He used conceptual drawings to illustrate and contrast the FAR for the current PUD and the proposed uses. He said 1.0 FAR exceeded the trip cap and left no room to develop the property. Ms. Hansen indicated she had no response to the testimony. Ms. Bettman expressed concern with considering a change to the FAR based on conjectural diagrams of a development proposal that was not tied to the change. She said if all of the applicant's requests were granted there was no requirement that a hotel or other specific use occur; once the zone change occurred the owners MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 6 Public Hearing could make any use of the property that was permitted under the new zone. Ms. Hansen agreed, but noted there were some limitations on uses due to the nodal development overlay. Ms. Bettman asked for clearer copies of the trip generation chart and other agenda packet materials. She did not perceive a connection between modifying the FAR and increasing density in nodal areas. Ms. Piercy asked if Ms. Bettman wished to keep the record open. Ms. Bettman asked if the applicant would be able to provide additional testimony if clearer copies of the tables and graphs were provided to her. City Attorney Jerome Lidz replied that the materials were already in the record and providing more legible copies would not change the record. Ms. Piercy closed the record and the public hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Providing for an Intergovernmental Agreement to Establish a Regional Fiber Consortium for the Ownership and Operation of a Fiber Optic Sys- tem; and Repealing Ordinance No. 20181 Pam Berrian, Telecom/Cable Program Manager, introduced Milo Mecham with the Lane Council of Governments, who was available to answer questions. She reviewed the proposed ordinance, which would merge two western Oregon public fiber consortia that had been working together for several years. She explained the Fiber South Consortium, composed of Oregon city and county governments, owned an intra- Oregon fiber optic backbone. She said the Regional Fiber Consortium existed nearby and both organiza- tions were established eight years ago when two fiber backbone providers gave several miles of dark fiber to cities and counties in exchange for a 20-year waiver of rights-of-way use fees; in Eugene's case that represented 66 feet of rights-of-way. She said merging the local government consortia under one organiza- tional government body was permitted under State law ORS 190. Ms. Berrian said the fiber was lit by a private provider chosen by a competitive process and the intention of the urban/rural partnership was to deliver high speed broadband and voice services to nearby, but less urban areas that did not have affordable access to such services. She emphasized that the merger would not create new obligations for the City and the City's actions would remain voluntary; any financial obligation would apply to Eugene only if Eugene agreed to the obligation beforehand. She said the partnership would serve the public interest and reflect the reality of the administration of both networks. She said nothing in the agreement reduced or adversely impacted Eugene's financial or program authority. Ms. Piercy opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Drix , Eugene, said his background was in communication and reviewed the changes in growth in the field over the past several decades. He said the Internet represented a vast river of knowledge and wonder that represented freedom and was accessible to a majority of the population, but it was important that everyone be connected. He said fiber optics was the future and urged the council to support the ordinance. Ms. Piercy closed the hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 7 Public Hearing Ms. Bettman noted that the consortium membership was geographically determined, which meant Eugene was not represented based on its population. She was concerned that the decision-making process of regional bodies gave smaller cities the same voting power as Eugene. She said the proposed agreement indicated financial resources would be the responsibility of the governing body and Eugene would be participating in a process where it was not proportionately represented. She felt Eugene was often considered the "deep pockets" in those situations and she was reluctant to be involved in a regional decision- making body with budgeting authority without the weight of the City's population behind it. She asked how the agreement would assure that Eugene taxpayers did not bear a disportionate burden. Ms. Berrian said the agreement insured that no financial obligation would be undertaken without the council's specific authoriza- tion. Ms. Bettman asked if any consortium financial obligation would come before the council. Ms. Berrian said any obligation that affected Eugene would come to the council. She reviewed the relevant provisions of the bylaws. Ms. Bettman pointed out that bylaws could be changed and asked if Eugene could propose proportional representation. Mr. Mecham said that Eugene could make that proposal. He clarified that the consortium had operating funds that were disposed of according to the decisions of the consortium; however, the City of Eugene was not obligated to provide those operating funds. He said operating funds were generated by the lease of fiber. Ms. Bettman commented that revenues went directly to the consortium even though Eugene likely generated more resources than the other members. Ms. Berrian explained that the fiber backbone used only 66 feet of Eugene's right-of-way, for which the City was provided nine miles of fiber through the city limits. Ms. Bettman asked how the City could pursue the issue that any expenditure or resource investment decision of the consortium would come back to the council. Mr. Lidz said a proposal for proportional representation involving weighted votes based on population could be submitted, although that would mean that Eugene would have greater weight than any other member of the consortium and the partnership could lose its attractiveness to other communities. Mr. Mecham said in a population-based proportional representation scenario Eugene would likely have close to 50 percent of the population and other jurisdictions would probably object. He understood the concern about proportional representation, but Eugene's original intent when entering into the consortium was to provide assistance to smaller cities that did not have access to telecommunications facilities. He said Eugene's involvement was not based on a particular benefit to the City, but rather aiding those other communities. He noted that the negotiations resulted in a large amount of fiber throughout Eugene that significantly increased its fiber infrastructure and from which the City had profited tremendously. He said Eugene had already received far greater value from the consortium than any of the other cities would ever receive. Mr. Pryor indicated he was pleased with the proposal and felt staff had negotiated a good agreement. He felt that any changes should be at the direction of the full council and subject to a vote. Ms. Bettman cited provisions of the agreement that authorized the consortium to enter into contracts for technical services, construction, facilities, purchase and ownership of real and personal property. She asked MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 8 Public Hearing for language to amend the resolution so that any budget authority or resource allocation decisions were brought first to the council. Mr. Lidz explained that the intent of the consortium agreement was that the consortium derived revenue from the lease of dark fiber and that revenue was available to the consortium to expend; no funds from the City's coffers should be available for the consortium to spend. He asked if Ms. Bettman still wished to have consortium expenditures approved by the council. Ms. Bettman asked how much revenue was generated annually and what portion of that was generated by Eugene. Mr. Mecham said the operating budget for both consortia was under $100,000 and Eugene generated none of the revenue. Ms. Bettman asked if there were likely to be future expenditures that would exceed available revenue and require investments such as revenue bonds. Mr. Mecham said that was theoretically possible but he thought it was unlikely that the representatives of local governments would be interested in bonding. He said the intent was for the consortium to operate without the need for borrowing and the vision was to use private capital investments. He said the difficulty of submitting budget decisions to the City of Eugene for approval was that the consortium was established as a separate legal entity and allowing Eugene or any other city to have veto authority over budget decisions would blur the separation of financial obligations. He reiterated that the consortium had no ability to create a financial obligation for Eugene, but blurring the separation could pose greater financial risk for the City. Ms. Bettman asserted that she found the language related to the consortium's authority to enter into contracts and expend funds confusing. She said she had no context for the amount of money that might be involved in ten years. She asked how much revenue staff projected might be generated by the City of Eugene and go directly to the consortium in the future. Mr. Mecham said that the amount would be zero, as the consortium would not have access to any funds from the City of Eugene without the City of Eugene's prior approval. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Granting Comcast of Oregon II, Inc., an Additional Term and Franchise Renewal for the Operation of a Cable Communications System; Amend- ing Ordinance 19775; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Ms. Berrian related that the City's cable television franchise was a contract with Comcast granting permission to use the City's public rights-of-way for commercial television activities. She said City code, federal law and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules governed franchise agreements. She mentioned that complaints related to programming, channel changes and most rate increases were outside the purview of local governments and the responsibility of the FCC and Congress. She reviewed the history of the cable television franchise and said Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had worked together to develop separate but identical franchises and that regional approach had worked well for resolving issues. Ms. Berrian stated that the current franchise was 15-years-old and would sunset in July 2008. She was proposing a renewed agreement that contained provisions that in her opinion would likely have been validated and put in place by a formal process, but without the cost of that formal process. She said City Council adoption of an ordinance was necessary to enact that type of contract. While many of the desired current provisions would be retained she highlighted some components of the new agreement including $20,000 in matching funds from Comcast for a downtown build out, provision of several additional no-cost MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 9 Public Hearing basic service television connections to publicly owned buildings, provision of a fourth access channel for Public Safety Training and an additional annual payment from Comcast of a $50,000 Capital Contribution for public education and government access channels. She reviewed a number of other provisions and said the new agreement served the public interest and did not provide Comcast exclusive rights to the Eugene market since other providers were welcome to obtain Franchise to market services in the community. She did not believe that further negotiations would result in significant gains. Ms. Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to testify, she closed the hearing. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could find another provider. Ms. Berrian replied that rights-of-way had always been open to other providers but another provider had not come forward, likely due to the infrastructure expense. Ms. Taylor noted that basic cable services had been reduced again while rates were increased. She said if those things were outside the City's control, perhaps another provider could be sought. She asked about the consequences if the franchise agreement was not renewed. Ms. Berrian said if the proposal was not accepted a formal renewal process established under federal rules would have to be undertaken; if the council chose not to renew after that formal process, none of the provisions she highlighted in the agreement would exist. Mr. Mecham said there were few providers seeking to expand into the Eugene market and the likely result of not renewing the current franchise agreement was that the City would have even less control over cable television services. He was not certain that Comcast would remain without a franchise agreement, which could leave the City with no cable television services. He thought the better approach to obtaining more choices for subscribers was to renew the franchise while encouraging competitors. Ms. Taylor said she had heard that low-income subscribers had very few channels currently. Ms. Berrian said she had received complaints about the most basic tier of service. She said those issues had to be addressed at the federal level, but local governments could advocate for better oversight. Ms. Bettman asked if the City was making the additional $50,000 payment for education and government access channels. Ms. Berrian replied that Comcast would make that payment to the City. Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the income that would be excluded under the new agreement. Ms. Berrian said there were two types of disputed income: income from advertising commissions and subscriber territory and income received when new programs were launched within the subscriber territory. She said a dispute over commissions had resulted in a settlement and the agreement provided for a $200,000 payment to the three jurisdictions in lieu of that income. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning the Police Commission and Amending Sections 2.013 and 2.368 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Linda Phelps, Eugene Police Department, provided an overview of the amendments, which addressed issues that had been raised by the City Council. She said those issues included elimination of a position appointed MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 10 Public Hearing by the police chief and changing the designation of a position from Citizen Review Board to Civilian Review Board (CRB) representative and clarifying the role of that position. Ms. Piercy opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Joe Alsup , 36 West 38th Avenue, Eugene, Police Commission vice chair urged the council to approve amendments modifying membership and clarifying the role of the CRB members. He said the commission unanimously supported the amendments. There being no further testimony, Ms. Piercy closed the hearing. In response to a question from Ms. Piercy, Mr. Lidz explained that an issue was raised regarding substitut- ing the word "civilian" for "citizen" throughout the ordinance, even where it referred to the community members of the commission as opposed to the CRB member. He said the term "citizen" was used throughout Chapter 2 in the description of other City commissions when it referred to a person who did not represent a specific entity to distinguish them from members who were designated representatives from other bodies or organizations. He said the definition of a citizen as someone who was a resident of a city or town, especially one who was permitted to vote, was the sense in which citizen was used in the current code. He said that could be changed but recommended it be done by separate ordinance for all board and commis- sions. Ms. Ortiz said she would support an ordinance changing the definition, but there should be a conversation about what the term means to the community at large. She said the Police Commission's intent was to use a term that was as inclusive as possible and not discourage someone from applying for appointment to a board or commission. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the City needed to be clear about who could apply for boards and commissions and would welcome a discussion of the term "civilian." She said an amendment could provide the definition of the term "citizen" in the code. She suggested that the matter be referred to the Human Rights Commission for feedback. Ms. Piercy determined there were no objections to referring the issue for discussion by the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Poling asked if action on the Willakenzie plan, currently scheduled for November 17, could be rescheduled, as several councilors would be absent on that date. City Manager Angel Jones said she would check on whether that could be done. Ms. Bettman said that the council's earlier discussion with City Attorney Emily Jerome had seemed to indicate that councilors could not have any discussions about alternative hospital sites. She said the issue was of critical interest to the community and asked if the council could have a formal discussion in open session. Mr. Lidz said he would need to confer with Ms. Jerome regarding her advice and the context in which it was given before responding. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 11 Public Hearing Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 12 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 17, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka (by telephone). ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Fiscal Year 2009 Service and Budget Alignment Process City Manager Angel Jones reviewed the council's allocation of $100,000 to hire a consultant to develop a process that would better inform budget development. She said she was responding to that direction instead of leaving the task to a new city manager and embarking on a process that would result in informed decisions based on outcomes based on the council's vision and goals and community values. She felt the budget development tool would help clarify policy direction, streamline processes and keep the focus on highest priorities. She acknowledged concerns about the prospect of change without adequate process; however, the change was primarily about staff culture and would have little impact on the Budget Committee and City Council. She said the new process would evaluate services from an organizational instead of department perspective and was confident of a successful outcome. Ms. Bettman stated that the council did not endorse the proposal; it had agreed to a prioritization process. She said the consultant did work across the country and in every article she has read, they are all about privatization and outsourcing. She asked if budgeting for outcomes had been discussed with the unions. Ms. Jones said she had a meeting scheduled with the unions. Ms. Bettman quoted the interim city manager of Fort Collins, Colorado, who cautioned that cities should not begin such a process without first committing to systemic long-term changes in the organization. She said she was willing to consider systemic changes, but the proposed process had not been subjected to public comment and City employees were mostly unaware of the possibility of change. She characterized the process as structural re-engineering of the City's service provision and budget, and expressed concern that it was precipitous and could adversely impact recruitment of a new city manager. Mr. Pryor commented that the intent of the change was honorable and based on a desire to budget in a way that was better aligned with goals. He did not perceive it as working toward some other agenda. He said the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 1 Work Session City currently had budget and goal setting processes that were not in alignment. He said the State required by statute certain safeguards that would remain in place regardless of changes in the process. He antici- pated a budget document that would be very similar to the current one, but with the additional step that would identify the outcomes and goals related to expenditures. He saw the process as making the current system more focused, appropriate and relevant and was in complete support of the first phase. He was excited and encouraged by the staff's proposal, which demonstrated a desire to be accountable in terms of outcomes. He did not see any intent to work against the unions. Mr. Clark remarked that a council goal was to increase police staffing and that had been deferred until the reprioritization process was completed. He said he would be concerned about postponing other things, including the reprioritization process, until a new city manager was hired. He echoed Mr. Pryor's comments and did not see the new process as a threat. He saw it as a response by the city manager to council direction to develop a systemic approach to setting priorities and achieving outcomes. He was very pleased with the creative and innovative approach Ms. Jones had taken. He credited her for taking a bold step. Mr. Poling commented that the council had endorsed moving forward to establish a reprioritization process, but not the specific proposal in the agenda item summary. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about aligning the budget and goals and felt Ms. Jones was following council direction to accomplish that. He said the new city manager would need to accept and work with whatever process the council wished to pursue and noted that the council could always decide not to continue with the new process if it was not effective. Ms. Taylor did not feel the process was what the council had agreed to with respect to examining priorities. She said there were many reasons not to move forward with change, particularly because the city manager recruitment was under way. She felt that no action should be taken until feedback had been received from the unions, City employees and the general public. She also wanted more time for the council to consider all aspects of the proposal. She was not prepared to vote on the matter. Mr. Zelenka stated that the City would be facing a $1 million deficit and needed to develop a balanced budget. He said that would require some difficult choices that should be informed by a prioritization process and input from the city manager, City employees, the public and councilors. He said the process needed better input and participation from the public and the City Council. Budget Manger Kitty Murdoch agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the public and the council should be involved, but said that staff had intended the initial year of the process to be primarily an internal review of current service levels and how well those supported council goals. She said it was not envisioned as a reduction process and the council would still be presented with a General Fund forecast and projected expenditure levels for FY09. Mr. Zelenka commented that it was likely reductions would be necessary in FY09 and he wanted to hear from the council and the public before staff formulated a budget. Ms. Ortiz asked if Ms. Jones had selected the process. Ms. Jones replied that she had chosen the process based on her understanding of discussions during the spring Budget Committee meeting. Ms. Ortiz said it would be difficult for her to support the proposal without sufficient background informa- tion to understand the implications. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman remarked that the FY09 budget document would be completely different if the motion passed. She said it would require quite an investment of resources and staff time to change the budget document and the way services were provided. She felt the process would usurp the unions’ plan for addressing outsourc- ing and privatization. She had not had an opportunity to discuss the process with her constituents and elicit their opinions because of the short notice. She cited materials from the State of Iowa public employees that strongly objected to the consultant’s, Public Strategies Group, recommendations regarding privatization. Ms. Jones stated that she would have preferred more lead time to present the process to the council, but as city manager she had the authority to implement such a process without specific direction from the council. She did not want to proceed without making the council aware of the process because it would encompass a review of vision statements and alignment of resources around those statements. She felt compelled to involve the council at this point because she wanted confirmation that the statements accurately reflected the council’s vision before moving forward. Mr. Clark asked if it was correct that the budget and budget document would change radically as a result of the process. Ms. Murdoch replied that the service budget would look somewhat different, but the operating budget by department and the capital budget, statistical tables, financial summaries, financial forecast and appendix documents would still provide the same information. Mr. Clark asked if that meant the change would occur in the public process with respect to how the budget was presented and the activities of the Budget Committee. Ms. Murdoch said she was not aware of any planned changes in those areas. Mr. Clark said it appeared that the primary difference would be in the way the budget was developed, resulting in better alignment with outcomes and more information for the council to use in considering priorities. Ms. Murdoch agreed with Mr. Clark. She said the process was an attempt to make the budgeting process more transparent. Mr. Clark expressed concern with reaction from the unions and asked if they had been consulted at this point in the process. Ms. Jones replied that typically the unions would not be consulted until the budget was developed and that approach would not change; she was meeting with the unions beforehand to advise them that the process was changing and assure them that the City’s values remained the same. She said that financial constraints that were likely to get worse in the future demanded a different approach to use of resources. Mr. Clark asked Ms. Jones to advise the council if the unions raised any concerns during her discussions. He said he had some initial concern with the choice of consultant, but based on what he had seen so far he was favorably impressed. He said that budgeting for outcomes and prioritization of resources was an approach that any city manager should be able to embrace. Mr. Pryor indicated he was pleased with the discussion of the process. He recollected that the Budget Committee had begun a conversation about prioritization in anticipation of a budget deficit at some point in the future and there had to be a system in place to prioritize services and reflect that in the funding levels. He said the charge to staff was to find a way to examine each department from a functional perspective to MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 3 Work Session facilitate service prioritization. He felt the process presented by the city manager was responsive to the council’s direction and added the element of alignment of resources with goals. Ms. Piercy asked for clarification of how council priorities would relate to alignment of resources with vision statements and goals. Ms. Jones said staff would be given direction regarding budgeting process parameters that would include allocating funds to address council goal implementation as a first step, followed by service alignment around visions. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the suggested motion indicated the budget document would not contain the same information as previous documents. She said she was not opposed to considering new ways to budget, but objected to the precipitous way it was presented to the council. She required more feedback, including from other jurisdictions, before moving forward. She stated that the council created the goals and the public had no input. She preferred to delay implementation of a major change to the service provision and budgeting process. Ms. Taylor said she did not understand why $100,000 was being spent if the process was the same. Ms. Murdoch replied that a different internal process would be used and the consultant would help design that process. Ms. Taylor said she had heard from some people that it would be ridiculous to start a new process before a new city manager was hired and she did not want to proceed. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve using the Limited Budgeting for Outcomes Process to develop the FY09 Proposed Budget by 1) endorsing the use of the five vision statements as the foundation for aligning services and allocat- ing resources; 2) acknowledging that the City Council and Budget Committee will function as the citizen input in the first phase of this effort by reviewing goal maps designed to identify the significant factors that contribute to achieving the desired outcomes of the vision statements; 3) participating in a review of the process at the completion of the FY09 budget cycle, and if warranted, committing to a full budg- eting for outcomes approach using additional public input to build the FY10 budget; 4) acknowledging that the budget document will reflect this new approach and will not contain the same information as presented in previous documents. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to postpone consideration of this matter until the council had hired a new city manager and proceed with FY09 budget process using the traditional process previously employed. Mr. Clark said he had been concerned during the last budget cycle about a council majority taking actions, such as holding library services harmless, in advance of the budgeting process, which created a dilemma by over-emphasizing the priority of particular items at the expense of other budget priorities. He said it was a systemic change in how budgeting was done that created the conflict and he was concerned that using that same process again would, in the absence of any prioritization work, create false priorities. He welcomed any effort to establish priorities in advance of the budgeting process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she could not support delaying action until a new city manager was hired, but would favor allowing more time for outreach to the unions and the public. She also wanted Ms. Solomon to have the opportunity to comment and vote on the matter. Ms. Taylor stated she would support the motion to postpone. She agreed that priorities should be examined and that could be accomplished in work sessions without changing the entire process. Mr. Clark agreed that the issue was being presented to the council with little lead time and while he was in favor of taking a different look at the budgeting process, he wanted Ms. Solomon at the table and therefore would support a motion to table, but not to delay action until a new city manager was hired. Ms. Taylor asserted that any significant change in how the City did business should be delayed until a new city manager was hired. Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her motion, stating that a complete restructuring of service provision and budget should wait until the leadership chosen by the council was able to take the organization into the future. The motion to postpone consideration of the matter failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to table the item and direct the mayor and the city manager to schedule it for further discussion by the council in a timely manner before the council’s winter break. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Pryor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Mr. Zelenka left the meeting at 12:50 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue: City Hall Complex Ms. Jones introduced Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects to present the subject. Mr. Cohen introduced Becca Cavell, who would be replacing Dana Ing-Crawford on the project. He reviewed the previous phases of the police patrol facility site selection process. He asked Mike Penwell, Facilities Project Manager, to provide an update on his research into the availability and suitability of sites D, E and F. Mr. Penwell stated that the owner of site D was not interested in selling. He said the owner of site F would not be available until next week and there were more improvements on that site than on the others, which would likely mean a higher cost. He said site E was owned by Lane Transit District (LTD) and the RideSource facility was located on the north portion of the site. He indicated that LTD was willing to make three to three and a half acres of the site available for development; that would be suitable for the patrol facility and the suggested motion was written to focus on site E for those reasons. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if site R was investigated. Mr. Penwell reviewed the positive and negative aspects of the site as discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Cohen added that the proximity of the railroad and volume of rail traffic could present access problems to the site, particularly if there was a rail accident near the site. He noted that 8th Avenue was identified as a "great street" and a patrol facility might not be a compatible use. In response to a question from Ms. Piercy, Mr. Penwell said that site R was not considered one of the top sites because the City owned the site and there could be potential loss of revenue from a future sale, the concept for a "courthouse district" did not include a police facility and the site was farther away from those areas that generated the most police trips. He said the Police Commission had discussed at length the issue of whether oversight required the patrol facility to be in or close to downtown and concluded that was not necessary. He referred to the police patrol facility site selection criteria set forth in agenda item summary Attachment A. Ms. Ortiz commented that she supported a separate patrol facility and preferred that it was located in an area of the community with a higher crime rate. Mr. Clark said he was inclined to support site E, although he thought the facility should be located in downtown to better address public safety problems in the downtown area. He hoped that eventually a precinct model would be adopted and site E could represent a step in that direction. He wanted to see a substation north of the river at some point in the next few years. He supported site E because it was the police chief's recommendation and appeared to be the most financially prudent choice. Mr. Pryor said he would favor a site the City already owned, such as site R, but the need for a patrol presence in downtown could be met by a precinct facility; a patrol facility had a more logistical use and it made sense to locate it on site E near support services. He thought that site R, which was near the river, could be put to better use than a police patrol facility. Ms. Piercy pointed out that there was a police substation at the downtown LTD station. Mr. Penwell added that the new city hall was planned to include a substation as well. Mr. Cohen noted that patrol represented about a third of police functions; the remaining two-thirds would remain in City Hall. Ms. Taylor stated that the police chief should be in the same facility as patrol. She did not feel the patrol facility needed to be close to the City's fuel and maintenance facility. She did not understand why the Police Commission was providing advice on the matter and wanted the council to discuss during the next budget cycle whether the commission was still necessary. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen to the two-thirds of the police department located in City Hall when the bond measure failed and there was no new City Hall. Mr. Penwell said it would be up to the council; the patrol facility and City Hall had been considered together in a single project and any new direction would be a policy decision of the council. Ms. Bettman objected to removing the patrol presence from downtown. She said that any type of develop- ment in downtown, including a patrol facility, would be more expensive. She encouraged consideration of MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 6 Work Session sites P, T and R, especially sites P and T. She said sites D, E and F might be better suited to redevelopment. She asked what the plan was for paying for a site. Mr. Penwell reiterated that the plan for financing acquisition and construction was entirely a policy level decision for the council. Mr. Cohen said as options evolved, estimated costs of all components of the city hall complex, including patrol, would be presented to the council for discussion, along with funding options. Ms. Bettman asked if any polling had been done to determine if a bond measure for a separate patrol facility outside of downtown would pass. Mr. Penwell replied that the council had approved a scope of work for the current project phase that included polling and that issue would be included. Mr. Clark asked if site E had adequate space for a facility that could house all police functions. Mr. Penwell said that had not been analyzed because direction from council had been to explore issues related to a separate patrol facility. He said based on previous analyses conducted when a bond measure of a full police headquarters was being considered, site E would probably need structured parking and a multi-story building to accommodate all police functions. Ms. Ortiz commented that another reason she had heard for rejecting site R was that the system of steam pipes in downtown could make the streets impassable in a catastrophic event. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with development of a patrol facility concept design for site E, and continue to ex- plore the acquisition of potential sites D, E and F. Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to change the language as follows: "…concept design for site E, and continue to explore the acquisition of potential sites D, E and F continue to explore acquisition of sites E and F." Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said she could not support removing patrol from downtown and thought that sites T and P were viable sites. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by including acquisition of sites T and P. Mr. Clark said he would not support the amendment, as he did not want the City to plan to build a public facility in the middle of what could potentially be a wonderful park. Ms. Taylor stated that her preferred location was still site R. Mr. Pryor did not like either site T or site P as both had potential problems related to unwilling sellers or unsuitable use of the site and could not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman said she was adding site R to her motion. Mr. Penwell reminded the council that a patrol facility could not be built on sites P and T and meet current planning and zoning requirements, although a variance could be requested. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark said that voting against Ms. Bettman's amendment did not mean he was voting against a downtown facility; he was voting against sites that were not suitable for a patrol facility. The motion to amend failed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. The main motion passed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones Interim City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 22, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted the recent Oregon Recreation and Parks Association conference in Eugene. She said the interested parties recently came together for what she termed a ‘very preliminary’ conversation about the future of Civic Stadium. Since the last meeting, she had welcomed the mayor of Eugene’s sister city, Kakagawa,, and said the visit had been a wonderful experience. Mayor Piercy reported that she had also th visited the Food for Lane County dining room on 8 Avenue, opened the Western Oregon Women’s Conference, and presented the Voles Step Sustainability award at the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Business Expo to Autohaus, a firm she commended for its great jobs and benefits and environmental stewardship. Mr. Pryor also recognized the visit of the Kakegawa delegation and said the council had had a nice lunch with delegation members. He noted that kudzu was considered a nuisance in the United States but was considered a useful plant species in Japan. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Ms. Ortiz attend the Bethel Neighborhood Watch Summit the previous week. Mr. Pryor said the Human Services Commission (HSC)) was in the process of redesigning its organizational structure and had considered consolidating into a single board to manage the Community Health Center oversee multiple human services functions. The Board of County Commissioners had not been comfortable with that approach and the HSC was now considering a separate Community Health Center function. Mr. Pryor noted the council’s reception of a letter from a broad spectrum of citizens regarding the implementation of House Bill 3337. He suggested that rather than consider the bill’s implementation onerous, the City consider the passage of the bill an opportunity to accomplish something larger. The letter asked the City to consider taking a larger look and consider accomplishing several tasks related to the inventory. He suggested the information could also be employed by the West Eugene Collaborative. Mr. Zelenka reported that he had been out of town since the last meeting at a conference in San Diego. He complimented Mayor Piercy and Ms. Bettman for their presentations on KLCC the previous day. He noted MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 1 Work Session he had attended the South University Neighborhood (SUN) meeting and heard a briefing on Eugene 08 and how that would impact the neighborhood. He anticipated an amazing event and said he would bring back a motion to the council to clarify its actions related to the matching grants the council allocated to the neighborhoods. He did not believe the match was intended to be matching but rather the grant requests were to be processed under the Neighborhood Matching Grant Program rules. Mr. Zelenka said the SUN received a neighborhood matching grant and constructed a kiosk for information rd about neighborhood events in University Park at University Street and 23 Avenue. Mr. Clark was very happy to see the letter referenced by Mr. Pryor, saying it was a conversation the community needed to have in an open and transparent way. He was happy to see so many people were interested in the discussion. Mr. Clark said he enjoyed the lunch with the Kakegawa delegates. Mr. Clark said the HRC had elected Annette Leonard as the new chair and Paloma Reza as the new chair, and had said goodbye to some old friends while acknowledging the work ahead. He had raised the issue discussed by the council regarding the use of the word “citizen.” The commission was also working on the taxi accessibility issue and some innovative ways to approach that issue. Mr. Clark asked to be recognized for a later motion. Mr. Clark noted his attendance at the Chamber event mentioned by the mayor and said he and Mr. Poling worked to promote sustainability while at the event. Mr. Clark thanked public safety staff for their work on Safety Day at the Home Depot on October 20. Ms. Taylor said the delegation appreciated the councilors in attendance. She said those in attendance had a good time. She said the two neighborhood groups she represented were very interested in the council’s work on Crest Drive and the Amazon headwaters. Ms. Taylor recalled that she requested some information about how much the City had spent to date on the West Broadway project and had not yet received an answer. That included the cost of the committee and the options. She asked how much had been spent to renew the options and if any of the properties involved had been purchased. Mr. Poling thanked Jan Bohman for her work putting the City’s Chamber booth together. He noted the upcoming Cal Young neighborhood association meeting on October 24. He reminded those viewing that ballots had been sent out and encouraged residents to read the voters pamphlet and vote. Mr. Poling noted the passing of resident Lucy Lahr, who was involved in a fatal hit and run incident. He extended the council’s condolences to Ms. Lahr’s partner and family. He said that Ms. Lahr was involved in too many activities to mention and would be missed. He was happy to see the police had made an arrest in the hit and run incident. Ms. Ortiz also extended her condolences to the Lahr family and said the intersection involved was very unsafe. She wanted to meet with neighborhood residents about possible solutions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she had also attended the Business Expo. She said the members of the Whiteaker Business Summit had been there and it was ready to go to work and members wanted to know what they could and could not do. Ms. Ortiz said she attended the Western Women’s Conference and had followed the Latino strand, in which more than 50 Latino, Spanish speaking women met concurrently. She said the meeting was amazing, and she commended the community advocates who spearheaded the effort, Carmen Urbina, Gualalupe Quinn, and Francisca Johnson. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Ortiz announced that the Department of Environmental Quality would talk more about railroad yard pollution on November 1 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Ms. Ortiz welcomed new Councilor Coordinator Margaret Harter. Mayor Piercy also extended her condolences to the family of Ms. Lahr. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the expenditure of $1,000 to pro- vide general assistance for the symposium on “Bringing Human Rights Home,” a confer- ence to explore ways city government can improve and be more proactive in addressing human rights matters. The source of funds requested is to be the general fund contingency account. Mr. Clark said the symposium, which was scheduled for November 9, had been fully developed after the budget was finalized. The cost represented the City’s portion of the event. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: ACQUISITION OF BEVERLY/GREEN PROPERTIES City Manager pro tem Angel Jones deferred to City Attorney Glenn Klein. Mr. Klein referred the council to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and reviewed its contents. The AIS provided an overview of the appraisal process. He anticipated the council would be able to act on the acquisition after the geotechnical drilling on the properties occurred; the council vote was scheduled for December 10, 2007. Mr. Klein said the length of time that the appraisal took would depend on how long it took to secure the information that was now lacking, such as how much density the properties could contain. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman did not think the council had used the term “density” in its motion. Mr. Klein said that the council used development intensity at low, medium, and high levels. Ms. Bettman said that when the council gave that direction, it had not been pursuing such a specific property appraisal. She asked if it was necessary to have a range if the City was going to have a definitive appraisal. Mr. Klein interpreted the council’s direction as requesting the value range with the appraiser’s opinion of what the value of the property actually was. The appraiser had to establish the density on the property to do so. He said the council did not legally need that information, but it might want to have it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought it made more sense to have the professional appraisal backed up with the technical information. Ms. Taylor asked if the City had information about the appraisal on which the property owners were paying taxes. Mr. Klein said the tax assessor did not appraise property in the same way as an appraiser. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council could value the property at what it was valued by the County. Mr. Klein said that would not hold up in a court of law, which would be interested in the real market value of the property. Ms. Taylor asked if it made a difference if the council decided the highest and best use for the property was as open space. Mr. Klein said those factors were spelled out in the land use code. It did not matter what the council thought was the best use of the property, and it lacked the authority to say how the property could be used unless it acquired it or changed the code, zoning, or Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The appraiser must consider the actual zoning and the condition of the property to establish its worth. Ms. Taylor asked if it was too late to rezone the property. Mr. Klein said the council would have to follow the established process for rezoning. The appraiser would look at current conditions. If a rezoning did occur, it must be consistent with the Metro Plan, so a Metro Plan amendment might be required. If the council attempted to rezone the property, he speculated that the property owner would submit another development application and, under State law, any application made before the rezoning would be governed by the criteria in place at the time of the application. Ms. Taylor asked if the amount paid for the property had an impact on the appraisal. Mr. Klein said that it was one thing that the appraiser would look at, and the appraiser was provided with that information. When the appraiser met the council, he would share his information about the appraisal and the council could ask that question then. Ms. Taylor determined from Mr. Klein that all the information provided in the land use process had been provided to the appraiser. Ms. Taylor asked if information about slides that happened elsewhere had been provided to the geotechnical engineer. Mr. Klein said that to the extent the engineer thought that relevant, they would consider it. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the geotechnical engineer hired by the City disagreed with the engineer hired by those supporting condemnation of the property. Mr. Klein said the appraiser would rely on information from the geotechnical engineer hired by the City. Part of the reason the drilling was necessary was because there were gaps in what all the experts did. That was why the Planning Commission concluded there was a lack of information to approve a development application. Ms. Taylor asked if the appraisal process would be different if the council voted for condemnation now. Mr. Klein said no. The first step after that decision was to secure an appraisal to back up any offer the City made for the properties. Ms. Taylor said she had requested a motion that stated the council would act no later than December 10, but Ms. Jones had assured her the motion was not necessary and the council would be able to act by that date. Mr. Clark asked how many Oregon municipalities had used condemnation since the passage of Ballot Measure 39. Mr. Klein did not know, but he believed that governments had continued to use condemnation. He said he could provide that information only after further research. Mr. Clark said his understanding of the measure was that it made it more difficult for cities to succeed with condemnation. Mr. Klein agreed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 4 Work Session He said that whatever the City’s first offer was, if at a trial a jury decided that the property was worth one penny more than the City’s offer, the City must pay all attorney fees for the property owners. In this case, he anticipated those costs could be considerable. Mr. Clark suggested that it was to the City’s benefit to negotiate a deal with the property owner. Mr. Klein agreed. He said the City had acquired hundreds of acres of property in the past but had only resorted to condemnation a very few times. It was very rare that the City was not able to work out something with the property owner. Mr. Corey said that on occasion, the City would seek the power for the purpose of negotiations. Mr. Clark noted his request to staff for a motion containing text that held the money in the budget for the Santa Clara community park harmless and asked when he should make that proposal. He wanted to be clear that the moneys intended for the park were used for that purpose. Ms. Jones believed Mr. Clark could make that motion at any time. Mr. Klein said that it would be very unusual to add such text to an ordinance authorizing condemnation because of the different nature of the actions involved. The council could not add the text to the ordinance regarding condemnation because it had already been the subject of a public hearing. Mr. Clark requested that staff provide him with direction on the best procedure for directing those funds. Mr. Clark agreed that the City should protect places that needed protection, and he thought the area in question was beautiful and many people favored protecting it. He asked how the City could lack standards that protected such a property if so many people favored its protection, and asked if the City created such standards, what other types of property they would apply to. Mr. Corey said it was difficult to speculate on what the protection of this property would mean on a citywide basis. He said he would consider the first part of the question. Mr. Zelenka said he had always favored negotiating with willing sellers and the use of condemnation as a last resort. He asked who would conduct the drilling, and when. Mr. Klein said his office had that information. He said that one of the difficulties with the process was that what he said in public session was known by the property owners, and the more he said, the more disadvantaged the City would be in its negotiations. He said he could provide a confidential memorandum providing more detail. Mr. Zelenka asked if appraisals “went stale.” Mr. Klein said yes. The time that took depended on the appraiser one spoke to. The City’s appraiser indicated there was no need for concern about that in this case, given that the council planned to take action in December. Mr. Zelenka said his inclusion in the text about low, medium, and high levels of development intensity was intended to provide the council with a range that might be considered by the jury as representative of the value of the property. Mr. Zelenka asked why the council was not provided with information about the limit regarding what was available from the parks bond measure. Mr. Klein said that bond counsel indicated the answer was complicated, and they recommended that the council wait to see if it really needed it. The council could not use it all, but there was a substantial amount, about $7 to $8 million, that could be used to buy the property. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked when the council would receive information about what other sources of funds might be available to purchase the property. City Manager pro tem Jones said staff would provide that information to the council. Mr. Zelenka repeated Ms. Taylor’s question about whether the time line gave the council sufficient time to act. City Manager pro tem Jones said yes, staff could schedule the item, but the question was whether the council would have sufficient information to act upon at that time. It was staff’s goal to have that information to the council in the time frame proposed. If the information was not available then, it would be rescheduled for the first available meeting date, and she would inform the council of that fact. Mayor Piercy recalled a condemnation action in Springfield that involved no controversy, and suggested that staff check into how that occurred. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Klein said staff would get any Lidar information provided by the neighborhood group to the geotechnical engineer. Mayor Piercy asked about the potential of separating action on the two properties. Mr. Klein did not think there was a problem with creating two different ordinances, noting there was a potential that the appraisals could result in different council actions. That did not have to involve more public hearings given that it would merely be a division of the motion and ordinance Mayor Piercy asked if the City could back out of a condemnation process once it had begun. Mr. Klein said yes, but the council would have to pay the property owners’ attorneys fees. Mr. Poling asked if the appraisal would involve consideration of appraisals done on other properties in the area. Mr. Klein indicated that information was considered private information. Mr. Poling asked if the council could have that information. Mr. Klein said he would attempt to secure it. Mr. Poling asked if one appraiser was doing both appraisals. Mr. Klein said that a firm was involved; the principle appraiser was doing both appraisals with assistance from other members of his firm. Mr. Clark recalled he had also asked staff about the property owners’ investment in attempting to comply with the City’s land use laws. He asked if that information could be provided by the time the council received the appraisal. Mr. Corey said that it was difficult to answer the question. He said the City could provide information about the cost of going through City processes, but he could not provide information about the private costs the property owners incurred. Mr. Clark asked if the City could ask the property owners the information and if there was a reason not to. Mr. Corey thought the City could ask for the information of interest to Mr. Clark but he doubted the property owners would provide it. Mr. Clark asked about the numbers mentioned at the public hearing. Mr. Corey said the City had no way of confirming the accuracy of the information. Mr. Clark asked if Lidar was an established science for establishing where to build houses. Mr. Klein said the geotechnical engineering analysis was established and the commission found it lacking in information. Having geotechnical information was a requirement of the code for such an application. He did not know about Lidar and said he could ask the City’s geotechnical expert the question. He said the expert must be prepared to get on the witness stand and testify as to his professional opinion, taking into account the information about Lidar. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark said that the neighborhood group suggested that Lidar was a more advanced way to understand the geology of the area, and if that was the case, it seemed like a good idea. However, he wanted to know more about the science involved. Mr. Klein repeated that the City was relying on the experts it had retained. Mr. Clark asked if the City’s experts recommended such research. Mr. Klein did not know. He said that staff could provide that information to the council. Mr. Clark said if what the City was being told was true about the instability of the soils, he was concerned about what other undeveloped residential lands in the south hills might exist with unsafe slopes. Mayor Piercy said if the council was to separate the two issues, she questioned the best time to do that. Mr. Klein said it would be useful to have that direction prior to December 10. Ms. Bettman suggested the council make the decision about separating the items at the executive session that would occur before December 10. C. WORK SESSION: MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION The council was joined for the item by Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman. Mr. Weinman provided the staff report, reporting that the program was established to encourage housing in the core area and was enabled by State statute. It impacted feasibility, location, and quality by providing incentives for financing, setting a boundary for eligibility, and by requiring applicants to address quality standards. Sixteen applications had been approved since 1978. The statutes had changed over time and had been expanded to include condominiums and transit corridors. He invited questions. Mayor Piercy solicited comments from the council. Ms. Bettman said she learned there were two other expansions the council had processed, one an expansion th in anticipation of a co-housing project and one that encompassed the Tate project at 13 and Olive. She had not meant to exclude those from the boundaries she would propose. She clarified the number of units that received the tax exemption with Mr. Weinman. Mr. Weinman called attention to the listing of projects. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the council’s receipt of information about the characteris- tics of MUPTE applicants, Mr. Weinman said that the information was included at the request of Mr. Zelenka. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the information was relevant to the decision given the application criteria did not address the characteristics. Mr. Clark said he had done some research into the issue and had learned that there were two different kinds of housing being built in the area in concern, and the type that was supported by the MUFTE were more traditional type of apartment complexes that could serve both students and low-income residents. Those without MUPTE support were generally market-rate housing and were profitable. The City was experienc- ing a surge of construction of apartment units that were five and six bedroom units aimed at students because the City’s parking requirements stipulated only one space per unit, which made them more affordable and profitable. It was becoming less affordable to build standard one- and two-bedroom units, which needed MUPTE support. Mr. Weinman indicated the City was also receiving MUPTE applications for units with more bedrooms. He could not say there was any consistency in bedroom numbers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark said that someone suggested to him that in the absence of the MUPTE, the five- and six-bedroom units would continue to predominate and the result would be student housing with parking crammed along the street. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Weinman said he would characterize Mr. Clark’s remarks as accurate. Ms. Ortiz thought the idea of encouraging growth in certain areas was ‘okay’ with her. She agreed that some of the units might not be as nice in the absence of the MUPTE. However, her challenge was that she did not see much building going on in her neighborhood or other areas not covered by the MUPTE. The infill that had occurred in her area was not attractive. She looked forward to seeing Ms. Bettman’s recommendations because she thought the City was “bringing coals to Newcastle” with the MUPTE. It was not as though the properties were not valuable or would not be developed; the question was how much input into the quality and design the City would have. Ms. Taylor asked the original purpose of the exemption. Mr. Weinman said it was to encourage housing in the core area and support a compact urban growth form and encourage redevelopment in the core. Ms. Taylor said it was supposed to be a benefit for the city, not the developers. Mr. Weinman agreed. He reiterated it was to encourage development in the core. Ms. Taylor believed that when the City changed the boundaries of the exemption area it had changed the purpose of the program. If someone wanted to build something good, they did not have to pay taxes for ten years whether it benefited the City or not, during which time the value of the property decreased before the property owners paid taxes. It did not seem fair to her, and it did not seem to benefit the City but rather developers Mr. Weinman said the current area was slightly smaller than the area established in 1986. The boundaries were last changed in 2004. Ms. Solomon believed the program was a powerful one and recalled that when the MUPTE was revised the City had added local standards. She pointed out the City had control over the process. The developer could chose from a variety of amenities to get them through the door. She did not think the City was a victim in this case. Speaking to the issue of taxes, Ms. Solomon asked the viewing audience to understand that MUPTE applicants still paid taxes; they did not pay taxes on the increase in the value of the property for ten years. She recalled that staff had produced a chart illustrating what the properties receiving the MUPTE paid before the exemption and after the exemption, and said that information would be good to have again. Mr. Pryor recalled the council’s work session on downtown development and the information it received about the fact that partnerships between developers and government produced a better product or outcome; that might be better for the developer but it was also better for the community and those who would be living in the facility. He said his perspective was that the MUPTE was one of the “tools in the tool belt” that allowed developers to build better proposals. Mr. Weinman concurred with Mr. Pryor’s assessment. Mr. Pryor thought the MUPTE was a demonstration of how partnerships produce better outcomes for the community as a whole. He suggested that if similar developments were not happening in other parts of town, perhaps the tool could be extended to those areas. He suggested the City could create “little MUPTE- ettes.” Mayor Piercy thought the City was still trying to provide incentives to construction in the urban core but some considered the boundaries broader than others. She recalled that at one time the council had discussed the goal of more housing for students, and said if that was no longer needed, the question was whether to shrink the zone and the boundaries. While it could be applied somewhere else, perhaps the tool would have MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 8 Work Session done its job in the area in question. Mr. Weinman said in his opinion, it was more expensive to do infill development. The City might get some inexpensive construction similar to that already done in past years in the West University Neighborhood. He pointed out the council changed the guidelines in 2004 to encourage higher quality development, and the applications that had been received since that time were of higher quality development than other projects built in the West University Neighborhood. Infill development often did not occur in general because the investment did not pencil out. Mayor Piercy asked about making MUPTE available everywhere to “incent” desirable infill. Mr. Weinman said that the City could do that in areas zoned for medium- or high-density development. The boundary was selected at one time because it was downtown and zoned for medium- and high-density development, where the City had a goal for more housing, and included adjacent higher density zoned areas. Mayor Piercy noted the list of qualities the City was trying to encourage, and asked Mr. Weinman if there were things that he thought were missing in terms of what the City was trying to achieve. Mr. Weinman suggested that was a council policy discussion. Mayor Piercy thought staff could suggest ideas to the council. Mr. Weinman recalled considerable council discussion in 2004, when some councilors wanted the quality standards to be stricter and more objective in nature. The council at that time decided to list the standards, ask developers to respond to them, and then decide whether the application met the test on a case- by-case basis. Ms. Bettman recalled the discussion mentioned by Mr. Weinman and said the public benefits mentioned included no benchmarks or weighting, and the council eliminated the weighting for low-income. She further pointed out that the definition of low-income before the council was higher than the definition of affordable housing as defined by the State. Ms. Bettman said she supported the application of the MUPTE in the urban core and to the places it was extended in 2004 because she acknowledged there was an economic disadvantage to building housing in the downtown core. However, she believed the housing around the West University Neighborhood was predominantly student housing with a transitory student population and the associated challenges that population brought. Those challenges created by the student housing placed a heavier burden on the City and at the same time the City was forgoing the taxes from those developments. The last MUPTE applica- tion the City processed in that area resulted in the existing improvements on the property being demolished, and the City lost the tax value outside the land value. Ms. Bettman agreed that if one was trying to leverage higher quality construction, it was not fair to focus on the downtown alone. She disagreed that there was no infill happening, as there was plenty happening, and the biggest complaint she heard was about quality. She suggested that the City focus on where development would not occur without assistance, which was downtown. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back for a public hearing a revised ordinance amending the MUPTE plan boundary consistent with the Downtown Plan boundary that was in place before the West University Neighborhood ex- th pansion, but including the amendments for 13 and Olive and the co-housing project. Mr. Zelenka said that his research indicated that the MUPTE tool was not used as much as he had thought. There had been numerous housing projects in the West University Neighborhood that were built without the benefit of the MUPTE. He thought a focus on the urban core seemed much more critical given that no housing project occurred in downtown in the last 20 years without a subsidy. However, when considering a boundary shift, he did not think the ‘big guys’ needed the exemption, but the most recent examples of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 9 Work Session MUPTE involved small, local developers doing small, quality projects. He suggested that “incentivizing” local, small builders was a better strategy as they had more incentive to build a higher quality project. Mr. Weinman pointed out that almost all the MUPTE applications were from local builders, with the possible exception of Broadway Center and Broadway Place. Most of those projects were still locally owned. Mr. Zelenka asked if the developments were higher quality because they were locally owned. Mr. Weinman attributed the higher quality to more stringent City standards. Mr. Clark indicated he would not support the motion. He was concerned about the amount of affordable housing in the core and he thought changing the boundaries would mean no more such housing would be built. He had spoken to Campus Housing Coordinator Mike Eyster of the University of Oregon (UO) earlier that day, who indicated there was a demand for on-campus housing but the UO was reluctant to build more because it created more public safety burdens for the City. The AIS indicated that the City had very low vacancy rates around the UO and in order for development to be economically feasible, rents must be sufficiently high to repay the loan. He pointed out that the higher the cost, the higher the rents people must pay. If the City was not involved in development in the area he feared that would contribute to a diminution of affordable housing in the area. He said that rents were increasing well above wages, and that was a concern to him. Ms. Bettman said that taxpayers were not in the business of development, but rather had their elected official leverage their money to achieve a public good. She said that student housing would get built anyway. Most students lived on campus in other university towns and very few lived off campus. It was unusual for a community to have to accommodate so many students outside a university system. She thought the arguments in favor of MUPTE were salient when applied to downtown and lost credibility when that focus was removed. Infill was happening in the other areas and there was no reason not to collect taxes from those developments to support needed services. Speaking to the glossary and the definition for low-income housing, Ms. Bettman objected that the definition for low-income housing was 80 percent of the median income of families or persons in Lane County, when the definition for affordable housing was 60 percent of the median income, which she believed was $38,000 in Lane County directly after the census. She speculated it had increased to $42,000 and maintained that the City had redefined low-income housing for the purpose of the ordinance. She asked staff to provide a definition of low-income housing consistent with the State definition . Mr. Weinman said that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defined “low-income” as 80 percent of median and very low-income as 50 percent of median; usually, “affordable” referred to median-income housing. Ms. Bettman requested that information. Mr. Clark requested information comparing property tax revenue yields if the projects supported by MUPTE had not been built. Mr. Pryor determined from Mr. Weinman that the boundary was expanded in 2004 after about a year of council discussion. Mr. Weinman said the boundaries were expanded because when the area had been shrunk in size previously, no multi-family development occurred at all. The council later discussed the tool as part of the tools available to help downtown and decided to expand the boundary. There had been some more limited development employing the MUPTE since that time. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor about the impact of the MUPTE in terms of enabling development, Mr. Weinman said the appraiser he had spoken to felt the MUPTE was pretty important to fostering development, and that the City would not see much development without it. That which did occur could be of poorer quality. Mr. Pryor suggested that the activity seemed to follow the boundary. Mr. Weinman agreed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Zelenka pointed out to Mr. Pryor said the vast majority of multi-family developments were in the West University Neighborhood, and 11 of 14 developments had not received the MUPTE but had still been built since 2004. When he drove around the neighborhood he saw a lot of development underway that was occurring without the MUPTE. He said “one of them was big.” For that reason, he would support the motion. Mayor Piercy suggested that the question might be whether there was a net gain for the community in terms of the quality of buildings constructed in the urban core. Ms. Bettman said if the City wanted higher quality building, it would want it all over the community. She said that was a code issue and required design standards. It made no sense to pay people to build “prettier projects” or forgive them their taxes for that reason. Ms. Bettman asked for information about the standards the City had in place for quality. What were the demonstrable differences between the qualities that the City received with the public benefits listed and how were those benefits weighed? Mr. Weinman was unsure that staff would be able to do so but indicated it would try. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff examine the last three applications. Mr. Weinman pointed out that staff did not weigh that information but provided it to the council for evaluation. Ms. Bettman said the characteristics she saw looked similar to those she saw being built in her neighborhood, and she questioned why they necessarily were considered higher quality. Mr. Clark was also concerned that the City had appropriate development and that it did not create a burden on public safety or rental housing enforcement. He wanted to motivate quality development and minimize conflicts with neighbors. He thought that it would be useful to have information about UO enrollment projections for the next ten years. He said that students would need someplace to live and they would have an impact on the market. Mr. Weinman said he would attempt to secure that information, but indicated that it was his understanding the UO was not projecting high enrollment increases. Ms. Taylor thought the boundaries should be reduced and the benefit of building in the core recognized by the MUPTE. She did not think the City needed to subsidize the demand for housing for University students. Ms. Taylor wanted to know what the City would receive from Broadway Place when it went on the tax rolls. Mr. Pryor said he added up the MUPTE housing units in the WUN and compared them to the others, and the 103 housing units were built with MUPTE, but 90 units were built without MUPTE. The other non- MUPTE projects were generally smaller. Mr. Zelenka asked what the City received for its public dollars. He liked the standards but they had no benchmarks to allow the council to measure what it was attempting to achieve. Mr. Weinman said the council’s evaluation of the information provided by applicants was purely subjective. Mr. Zelenka said that there were scoring mechanisms to get at that information, and he had no way to do so. He did not think the process allowed for that because the City could not quantify what it was buying. He asked how the City would know something would not be built without MUPTE. Mr. Weinman said that financing was part of the equation. Staff looked at and analyzed the pro formas to determine if they could be financed under lending requirements and based its recommendation on that analysis. Lenders wanted a certain cash flow from projects. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Zelenka requested that staff provide the council with options on making the local standards less subjective and more objective, and asked for more detail about how the City knew when projects would not be built without MUPTE. Mayor Piercy said that one could forgive taxes or pay taxes to achieve a purpose. She said if she was to vote, she would prefer to vote on shrinking the district after the council received more information. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Ze- lenka voting yes; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pyror, and Mr. Clark voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 12 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 31, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Betty Taylor joined by phone to vote only. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Transition of Annexation Procedures Mayor Piercy announced that she would be putting together a citizen advisory group for the purpose of working on issues having to do with the Trainsong and Whiteaker neighborhoods. She hoped to facilitate better communication among the various stakeholders and to provide for better neighborhood involvement regarding the areas affected by railroad yards. City Manager Angel Jones asked Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to provide background information on the transition of annexation procedures. Mr. Nystrom explained that the work session sought to brief the council prior to the public hearing scheduled for November 19. He said at that time the council would be considering an ordinance that would facilitate the transition of annexation procedures from the Boundary Commission to the City of Eugene. He recapped the implications of Senate Bill 417, which had abolished the Boundary Commission and required that beginning January 1 the City of Eugene would have to have a process in place to perform the functions of the commission. He underscored that the focus of the ordinance was to follow the state mandate; at this time a broader discussion regarding policy issues behind annexation was not being undertaken. He stated that the draft ordinance sought to assume the responsibilities of the commission in a way that maintained all existing council policies regarding any of the aspects around the annexation discussions including Metro Plan policies, code provisions, and resolutions the council had adopted over the years. He reiterated that all of the council’s existing policy directions would be maintained. Mr. Nystrom clarified that with the passage of the bill the State statutes that applied to annexations were essentially the same as those that applied to every other community in Oregon. He said in preparing the draft, staff had looked at what other communities were doing in regard to annexations and had found that there was no one model being employed. He attributed this to the differing circumstances that different communities faced, both political and physical. He related that staff was proposing an ordinance that matched what the community would need, such as the current council policies around annexations – an MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 1 Work Session important part of which was that the City was not in the practice of initiating non-voluntary annexations. He stressed that this was very different from the practice of many communities. Mr. Nystrom stated that the “checkerboard or Swiss cheese effect” of the annexations in the River Road/Santa Clara area had made the City of Eugene situation very different from the situations of most other communities. He explained that it led to a higher volume of smaller scale annexations. He under- scored that the City Council would be the sole decision-maker for all annexations to be proposed; the council would have sole discretion to decide whether to approve them or not. He highlighted the process as stated in the draft ordinance, as follows: ? A two-track process was proposed; ? Any application that came in for annexation would be evaluated by staff; ? Staff would make a recommendation to council in the form of a resolution; ? The council would have the option to act on the resolution or it could pull any particular annexation applications from that list and set public hearings on them; ? The second track would be to hold the public hearing; ? Staff would provide the required notices for the first process, and in the case of a public hearing would provide the second round of required notices. He reiterated that the City had mostly seen smaller annexation requests and the majority of those had been processed without controversy. He noted that the controversy that had occurred had largely centered on the inclusion of street annexations with the annexation requests. He acknowledged the council’s recent adoption of policies regarding annexations and stressed that they would still be in effect. Continuing, Mr. Nystrom said staff would try to batch the annexation requests when they could. He noted that it was the Boundary Commission’s practice to batch annexation requests as it convened every other month. He added that in addition to annexation requests, the commission also heard petitions to withdraw from special districts and for extra-territorial extensions. He noted that the latter was rare. Mr. Nystrom stated that the draft ordinance had gone to a public hearing with the Planning Commission, which had recommended approval of the ordinance. He said staff would convey the Planning Commission’s recommendations, which included additional noticing requirements particularly in terms of ways of noticing residents and the times for extra notice. He related that staff hoped to wrap up the item by December so that the process could be set up in January. Mayor Piercy suggested that the council not be presented with a large batch of annexation requests initially. Mr. Clark related that the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) Chair, Jerry Finigan, had expressed concern to him about a perceived lack of communication. He asked how the changes would be communicated to concerned neighborhood organization members. Mr. Nystrom responded that under current provisions, with the process entirely falling under the purview of the City of Eugene, it would be easier to “map out” the communication process. He also felt that this was the concern expressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark asked how the changes would affect the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the County. He noted that currently people had to de facto annex in order to obtain a building permit. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that the City and then the County had adopted Urbanizable Development codes that controlled how building permits were issued and how development occurred on properties within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Nystrom said the provisions that were being considered were currently in place; this included who administered the code. He stressed that this would remain the same. Ms. Bettman was amenable to batching annexations. She thought it would make sense to assume that there would be a public hearing for the whole batch and then whatever was controversial would “come up.” In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome explained that the use of the term territory throughout the ordinance came from the statutes. She clarified that extra-territorial meant land that was outside the city limits. Ms. Bettman observed that the findings indicated that the amendments only impacted land that was urbanizable within the UGB and this seemed to exclude amendments having to do with extra-territorial land. She declared that this was an inconsistency and though they were rare they were significant. She noted that they were being proposed to be processed as a “Type 2” application, which meant the Planning Director acted on it and then if there was an appeal it would be brought before the Hearings Official. She opined that extra-territorial issues were “major policy issues according to the Metro Plan.” She thought they should be processed by the City Council after being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Jerome clarified that while these items were land use items they were not code amendments and so would not have to be heard by the Planning Commission first. She said such items could be presented to the Planning Commission if the council so chose. Ms. Ortiz asked if the approved criteria for annexations that indicated that properties that were non- contiguous would not be annexed, would still be in place. Mr. Nystrom affirmed that this was the current policy, as adopted by the City Council. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for all the work staff had done to craft an ordinance to put this system in place. He said he assumed that the public hearings held by the Planning Commission and to be held by the City Council would bring about some changes to the ordinance language. Ms. Jerome commented that what was before the council was a condensed version of what the council was required to do under the statutes. She stressed that the statutes were very prescriptive about the process but said very little regarding the criteria, application requirements, fees, and so on. Mr. Zelenka surmised that all of the existing policies were still intact and the chief purpose of the ordinance was to take the Boundary Commission function for within the UGB and transfer it to the City Council. Mr. Nystrom responded that staff had made an effort to ensure the policies were left intact, but one area that could not be included because of a change in state law was the policies that applied to non-contiguous annexations. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that annexation would not be triggered by a remodel. Ms. Bettman said the term “within the community” had been used under the policies related to extra- territorial lands regarding the extension of water and sewer service and she found the term to be vague. Ms. Bettman remarked that the purpose of annexation, as stated in the ordinance language, was just so that the City was consistent with State law. She asked if this was really the only purpose for the processes or should the language reference consistency with the Metro Plan as well. Ms. Jerome replied that both of those were in the “purpose section” and the language could be changed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 3 Work Session In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome stated that the categories of elector/owner were from the statutes. She explained that the owner was the owner of the property and an elector was someone who could vote who lived on a property. She discussed the differences between double majorities and triple majorities and how that affected the annexation process. Ms. Bettman advised staff to use “common language” so that the public would have the chance to weigh in on the subject in an informed way. She averred that most people could not get through “this kind of technical language.” B. WORK SESSION: FY09 Service and Budget Alignment Process Ms. Jones said she had consulted with representatives of the labor unions and with the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) since the October 17 work session on this topic. She reported that the labor leaders were concerned about the impact of this process on their memberships. She related that the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) had asked, and she had given assurances to them, that the City utilize the competitive service delivery model jointly developed by the management and AFSCME to evaluate the benefits of alternative delivery models prior to initiating outsourcing proposals. She stated that there was an understanding that the model was in place and before any decisions would be made through a budget process, all of the policies and procedures would be reviewed prior to the implemen- tation of changes. She reported that the NLC had appreciated the different approach to the budget, but was concerned about the amount of public involvement in the process for the Fiscal Year (FY) 09. She introduced Kitty Murdoch, Budget Manager for the Finance Division. Ms. Murdoch shared her excitement about the process. She had long wanted to better link the council goals with the budget. She felt the City had not done a good job in linking those goals with how it conducted its budget process. She stated that budgeting for outcomes was a proven method that was endorsed, taught, and cited as a best practice by leading professional organizations and universities. She averred that it helped organizations prioritize services and deliver better results and would benefit the community by providing more transparency, more staff involvement in decisions, more linkage of the budget to outcome measures, a review of service options and it would identify creative ways to improve services and align them with expected resources by FY11. Mayor Piercy underscored that she was not interested in developing the cheapest budget possible; she was interested in the best use of resources. Ms. Murdoch assured her that Public Strategies Group (PSG), the consultant hired to aid in the process, was not interested in promoting the cheapest way to provide services; the emphasis was on providing the best value to the community. Mayor Piercy wanted to gather public input before there was a vote on it at the council level. Ms. Jones said staff was trying to be cognizant of how to incorporate more public input when looking at the timeline. Mr. Pryor appreciated the effort to adopt a new way of budgeting. He supported the linkage of council goals to the budget. He agreed that the cheapest way of doing things was not always the best way; rather the focus should be on selecting services to budget for that provide the greatest ability to achieve a goal. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 4 Work Session wanted to ensure that services were delivered in the way that best met the needs of the people of Eugene. Regarding public input, he strongly felt that the council needed to be mindful of which elements of it were appropriate to the process they were going through and which did not apply. Ms. Bettman asked which goals of the City were not being met. Ms. Murdoch replied that the City provided services under most of the council goals. Ms. Bettman surmised that the City was basically already fulfilling the goals. Ms. Murdoch affirmed that the City had programs that addressed each of the goals. Ms. Bettman opined that rhetoric around “this particular program” was like “religious zeal.” She felt it lacked substance. She asked how the proposed motion differed from the motion that was before the council on October 17. Ms. Jones responded that she was seeking council support to use the City Council’s five vision statements around which to align the City’s resources. She averred that the value and outcomes that were desired were not being stated, and the budget was not being aligned around the goals; it was being aligned by service outputs. Ms. Bettman felt that the motion was basically an endorsement of the program. She thought a piece of the motion had been left out, which was the presentation of the budget. She had a lot of concerns about showing up for the FY09 budget process with “a completely different document.” She declared that there would be no way to compare historic revenue expenditures with future revenue expenditures given the new format. She asked if it would be possible to move forward with the same budget document. Ms. Murdoch responded that the service budget would appear different because the City would not be aligning it in the same way. She said there may be services that serve two goals that would be split, but most of the document would remain as it is today. She pointed out that the City had an award-winning budget document and the City valued that it communicated well with the councilors, Budget Committee, and the community. She underscored that the budget, once completed, would be understandable and would be more transparent than before. Ms. Bettman reiterated her feeling that it would be problematic to have a document that would not track historic expenditures. She averred that there were school boards in Minnesota and labor unions in Iowa who had objected to this kind of program. She felt that if it was a good program the City did not need to move on it “in a truncated manner” and could defer the change to FY10. Ms. Jones thought one of the primary reasons to move forward with this program was that she had heard “for years” the desire to have more input into the budget process earlier and she had heard questions about how the City defined the things that were in the budget. She reiterated that she could have undertaken this process, directed staff to implement this procedure, and have gone through all of the steps and returned with a budget that would answer the questions it was legally required to answer. Instead, she said, she preferred to choose to communicate with the council on anything she would consider to be a change in the budget process in order to get the feedback on the vision statements. She wanted to move forward with the council’s support for those statements. She stressed that the City had to do something different other than a status quo budget because the forecast mandated that the City would not be able to continue to do “business as usual.” She underscored that it was important to her that the council understood that this was how the resources would be aligned; all of the other things were “irrelevant.” She pointed out that she could have easily chosen not to undertake this change given that she was serving in an interim position and that it would be “a headache to try to do.” She said this approach would have eaten up more of the reserve funds and left a “mess” for someone else to clean up. She declared that this was not how she did business. She was trying to make the process as up front and to garner council support for it as much as possible. She averred that this process would help the City to align its resources with the community’s values. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Clark commended Ms. Jones for her remarks. He supported the five council goals and visions as a basis on which to undertake the alignment process. He was not interested in delaying this process and pointed out that one of the things the council had wanted was the opportunity to do more work and have more discussions on priority setting. He recalled that one of the items they had held off on in the previous budget session was an increase in police staffing. He was unwilling to wait another year to begin this and another year after that to increase police staffing. Mr. Clark related that he had spoken with Lou Sinniger, AFSCME Council Representative for Local 1724, earlier in the day. He stressed that he was not interested in destabilizing staff morale or finding ways to privatize or to find ways to do things “on the cheap.” He wanted to find more efficient and effective ways to communicate and link outcomes to the work that was being done. He remarked that if the City was doing two separate things in two separate departments to achieve the same goal, he would want to increase the linkage and communication between the two. He predicted that this would not lead to an increase in City staffing. Mr. Zelenka approved of the linkage of the vision statements and, more importantly, the goals of the City Council to the budget process. He was unclear how this could occur. Ms. Murdoch explained that each of the goal areas had a cross-departmental team of staff people who were meeting to decide what key factors most influenced the outcomes for safe communities, sustainable development, and the other goals. She said they would also choose indicators that would then let the community know how well the City was doing in achieving the goals. She stated that staff would bring a map of the goals and links for the Budget Committee to review on November 19. She related that after this, the departments would undertake service offers and would review what programs they currently offered, or what new programs they could think of that would meet those factors, and ultimately those would describe levels of options including the current level of service and a level that addressed the minimum and the exceptional levels of results. She explained that staff would then determine which of the offers would give the best results according to the council goals and would put together the best “grouping of packages” that delivered the best outcomes. This would be forwarded to the Executive Management Team, which would look at the financial forecast in relation to the recommendation and could make subsequent changes. Mr. Zelenka expressed concern that the new process would preclude the ability to look back two years and review the past budgets. Ms. Murdoch assured him that the City was required by law to do so and would be doing so at a departmental level and at a fund level. Mr. Zelenka recalled that when he had served on the Budget Committee years earlier there had been a shift from a department-oriented budget to a service-oriented budget. He asked if this approach would create a different way of looking at the budget services. Ms. Murdoch replied that the service budget would be aligned around the goals and would demonstrate how the various services would be organized under the vision statements. She said the financial summaries would remain in their current form. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Murdoch clarified that as part of the instructions to the service teams there would be offers on the goals and the offers would be ranked ‘high,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘low.’ Mr. Zelenka asked why the term “service offers” was being used. Ms. Murdoch responded that it was the language that budgeting for outcomes used. Mr. Zelenka shared his concern that this approach might lead to service privatization. Ms. Jones responded that the unions shared some of these concerns, but she did not believe that the change in approach would change the set of values from which the City operated. She averred that if anything it would respect the values more because it would allow for more involvement in the process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka commented that he wanted to ensure that the public had involvement. He hoped there would be additional involvement before the process was completed. Ms. Solomon supported the budget alignment process. She believed it was an “exciting opportunity” for a different process that would ultimately be less divisive. She was not bothered by the truncated process. She felt it was to their advantage to do this “in two steps.” She said it was important to exercise fiscal responsibility and get “ahead of the curve.” She noted that the City had not gotten out ahead of the transportation infrastructure needs; the City had known since 1999 that it had a problem with the way it funded road maintenance and preservation and still had not taken action to change its approach. Ms. Ortiz appreciated Ms. Jones’ attempt to do this. She agreed that it would have been easier, as City Manager Pro Tem, to continue conducting the budget process as it had been. She felt Ms. Jones was trying to create a partnership with the council. She indicated that she would support the motion. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for Ms. Jones’ comments and her efforts to involve the council. She stated that Ms. Jones had her confidence that she would undertake the process in a way that was aligned with the values of the organization. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to endorse using the City Council’s five vision statements as the foundation for aligning services and allocating resources in the FY09 Pro- posed Budget. Mr. Poling underscored that Ms. Jones was charged with “fixing what was broken.” He had been concerned as to how the budget alignment process would treat the unions and that it could lead to some privatization but he had come to believe that the system and policies that were in place had sufficiently addressed those concerns. He thought involving the staff in the process would provide a pride in ownership. He intended to support the motion. He expressed his appreciation to Ms. Jones for the work she had done on this and for the courage and dedication she had shown in taking these tasks on. He considered budget alignment to be a “huge task.” Mr. Pryor commented that while speaking of aligning with goals and visions could be considered rhetoric, he sensed the City was also talking about setting metrics and he supported this. He applauded staff for coming forward and asking for metrics. He thought the metrics would help the council and staff to understand whether the money actually went to the services that were designated and what happened as a result. He wanted to move away from people bringing a “shopping list” of what they wanted to the budget process. He wanted the money to be tied to the desired outcomes and council goals. He felt the budget alignment process would move everyone in that direction. Ms. Bettman took issue with performance measures and metrics. She said she had always wanted to see performance measures, but she wanted measures that “had some meaning.” She averred that in the past such measures included surveys which she considered to be intangibles. She felt the budget alignment process had no community input and was not justifiable at this time. She recalled that the council had voted to not dispose of the Kaufman Senior Center and had voted to take money from selling the annex and put it into a trust to provide the Kaufman Senior Center with funding into perpetuity. She noted that this was against the staff’s wishes, but the council supported doing so. She also recalled that staff had recommended that there be bicycle and foot patrol public safety for urban core parks and the downtown and the council had put into place the funding for this, also into perpetuity. She asked what would happen to those services if staff decided that in order to “reach some obscure benchmark” the budget would not include these. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Jones assured her that those decisions would be made like they were made every year; services funded in the previous year had to be evaluated the following year and the council and Budget Committee would still have the option to bring back something and make a change if they did not agree with a staff recom- mendation. She stressed that nothing was changing with that process. She stated that staff went through an annual evaluation of every service and tried to determine whether the City could continue to provide the service with the available resources or whether there was a better mechanism to deliver that service. Mr. Zelenka asked how the ten council goals would specifically be incorporated into the process. Ms. Jones responded that part of the budget instructions would state that there were ten council goals and that the staff teams needed to submit service offers at high, medium, and low levels to address those goals. Mr. Zelenka suggested that a web-based explanation be provided with a way for people to be involved and provide feedback. He preferred a budget based on values and a recognition of the diverse needs in the community, rather than just funding what was deemed most important and working the Budget Committee’s way down the budget. Ms. Taylor joined the meeting by telephone at 1:27 p.m. Ms. Bettman predicted that the issues that had “percolated up” from the community and upon which the council had made determinations, would be up for argument every year. She asserted that if those things were not supported by staff they would be the first things to fall out of the budget. She was not ready to make a change she considered to be so drastic. She felt this process was being “railroaded through” in a short amount of time. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 13, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council work session. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted the absence of Ms. Taylor, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Ortiz. She explained that two of them were attending the National League of Cities meeting in New Orleans. Mayor Piercy announced that the council interviews for the Planning Commission and Budget Committee would be held beginning at 5 p.m. on Monday, November 19. Mayor Piercy reported that she had met with the Youth Action Board (YAB). She related that they continue to want to develop a youth advisory council for local government. Continuing, Mayor Piercy said she had spoken at the City Club on the city manager recruitment process. She felt there was a lot of interest in the creation of an independent auditor position for the City. She had also helped to kick off the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) campaign the previous weekend. She said the group wants to encourage people to remember to have a designated driver when out celebrating the holidays. She also shared a decorated stuffed bear that had been presented by visitors from Japan. Mr. Zelenka related that an Oregon Toxics Alliance meeting regarding field burning at St. Peter’s Catholic Church was scheduled for the following day. He said the focus would be on what people could do to move forward. Mr. Zelenka called attention to the McKenzie Watershed Council report that was included in council packets. th Mr. Zelenka also shared a display of pictures from a dedication on 18 Avenue in which he had participated. He spoke glowingly of the project, which included bicycle amenities, parking, and bioswales. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka provided a chart he received at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) which delineated the cost per gallon/per passenger in relation to modes of transportation. He also reported that the MPC had taken two significant actions: approval of both the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), though not by a unanimous vote; and the Air Quality Compliance Report. He felt that the new RTP contained several problems, one of which was that there was an insufficient linkage between land use planning and the transportation plan. He felt the RTP was off in “a different orbit” than the TransPlan. He also thought that although MPC had met the legal requirement for public involvement, he had not felt the amount of public involvement to be sufficient. He underscored that there were “hundreds of millions of dollars” that would be spent “in the short-term.” He averred that the way transportation planning happened in the community had a huge impact on it. He thought the amount of public involvement they were getting in the process was disproportionate to the impact of the money. He related that they asked staff to bring back ideas about how to do that better for the next meeting. He said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff briefed the MPC on the 2008-2011 funding cycle in which they advised the MPC that they would be $142 million short in transportation funding for the state. He stated that ODOT was in “triage mode.” He noted that the projection for spending in 2012-2013 for Region 2 was $6.5 million. He called the RTP “very unrealistic” given the constraints related to the “fact that ODOT has cut us back,” that the gas tax had not been increased since 1993, and that prices for labor and materials had increased dramatically. He explained that they had passed it because not passing it could have put federal funding in jeopardy. Mr. Clark noted that he would also be attending the Oregon Toxics Alliance meeting. Mr. Clark reported that he attended a Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) Juvenile Justice Subcommittee meeting on October 23. He related that there had been a lot of discussion and concern about the impact long-term county funding issues would have on the juvenile justice system. He said County Commissioner Bobby Green was serving as chair for the committee. Mr. Clark related that he also attended a Chalkboard Project reception on October 24. He had enjoyed hearing about the progress of the project. He listed some of the other functions he had attended, which included Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County, Oregon (CVALCO) meeting on October 25, at which he learned about the plaques that all of the mayors purchased for the pathway, neighborhood meetings, a Lane Metropolitan dinner on November 7, and the Human Rights Commission “Bringing Human Rights Home” symposium on November 8 and the “Making Eugene a Human Rights City” event earlier on that day. He said it had been a moving and educational day and he expressed appreciation for all of the staff involvement in the event. Mr. Clark thanked the veterans for their service in honor of Veterans Day. Mr. Clark closed by saying “Go Ducks” in support of the game scheduled for November 15. Ms. Bettman wished to thank the voters who voted for the special election. She was eager to begin looking at next steps. She noted that the council special session scheduled for November 27 was intended as a discussion on the next steps to take with downtown redevelopment issues. Ms. Bettman appreciated Mr. Zelenka’s update on the RTP. She averred that adoption of plans that were not financially constrained had been “an issue before.” She remarked that it was always a situation where “they” say it has to be adopted or the federal funding would be jeopardized. She opined that this was dysfunctional public policy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman related that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had met with Smith Dawson and CCIGR staff to discuss the United Front agenda, the list of projects that they were moving forward, and the “landscape” in Washington, D.C. She understood that the United Front list would come to the City Council but she did not see it on the schedule. City Manager Angel Jones said she would work with the Mayor to put it into the schedule. Ms. Jones reported that she had been in discussion with the potential downtown developers, Beam Development and KWG Development Partners. She related that both continued to be interested in working with the City of Eugene to revitalize the downtown area. She stated that City staff had not made any recommendations or decisions related to downtown development. She said staff was in the process of identifying a broad range of options to be presented for the council’s consideration on November 27. She noted that the developers had been invited to that meeting. She indicated her willingness to meet with any of the councilors to address questions or concerns they might have. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to delete the requirement for matching funds from the Fiscal Year (FY) 08 funding dedicated to the Olympic Trials-impacted neighbor- hoods. Mr. Zelenka explained that his motion sought to make already allocated funds available to neighborhoods without having a requirement for matching funds. He had intended, when the body addressed this at the Budget Committee level, to waive the matching fund requirement but it had not been recorded in this way. He felt having to find matching funds was a hindrance given the timing of the availability of the funds and the proximity of the Olympic Trials. Mr. Clark asked if there was specific information in regard to what the money would be used for. Mr. Zelenka replied that he did not know. Ms. Solomon recalled the discussion the committee had in regard to requiring matching funds. She felt that asking the neighborhood to come up with $3,000 from 1,000 households was not that much. Mr. Pryor commented that there was a set amount of money that was available; whether there was a match or not, it would be limited to that amount of money. While he supported the matching grant concept, he said he would support this motion because it was related to the Olympic Trials which was less than a year away. He felt the Olympic Trials was a unique event. He wanted to see some neighborhood projects in advance of it. Ms. Bettman remarked that a matching grants required service or sweat equity or cash. She favored the motion. Mr. Clark was inclined to support the motion. He thought it would affect the kinds of projects the neighborhood would choose. He added that he wanted the project that they would choose to have broad neighborhood support. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that this was a different situation from the norm for neighborhood matching grants as it was specific to the Olympic Trials. Ms. Jones concurred. She felt the Olympic Trials presented a special situation and the grant funds in this case were specifically intended to mitigate the impacts the event would create. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 3 Work Session The motion passed, 4:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. B. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of City Council Minutes - September 10, 2007, City Council Meeting - September 17, 2007, Community Forum - September 19, 2007, Work Session - September 24, 2007, Work Session - October 2, 2007, Boards and Commissions Interviews 2. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion passed, 5:0. C. ACTION: Resolution 4920 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property th Located at Northwest Corner of 11 Avenue and Lincoln Street, Eugene, Oregon (Eugene Down- town Co-Housing LLC, Applicant) Ms. Jones asked Richie Weinman, urban services manager for the Community Development Division (CDD), to provide background information on the resolution before the council. Mr. Weinman stated that the resolution was for approval of an application for a Multiple-Unit Property Tax th Exemption (MUPTE) from Eugene Downtown Co-Housing on the northwest corner of West 11 Avenue and Lincoln Street. He highlighted the project which included 24 units, 23 of which were intended to be sold and 22 of which were handicapped-accessible. He said the plan included some retail space. He noted that Ms. Bettman had submitted questions earlier in the day and provided the answers: ? There were two dwellings, both single-family houses, formerly on the site that had been removed. Both were small and in “not great” condition. ? The area is zoned SDW, a Special Downtown Westside area zone, and in it was a Mixed Use zone that contained no density standards. Commercial use is permitted but was limited to a list of spe- cific uses. ? Currently property taxes on the land were $2,460; the reason the applicants were seeking the ex- emption was because they felt that without it the homes would be too expensive to sell. Ms. Bettman asked what the square footage of the retail and the square footage of the housing would be. Division Manager for CDD, Mike Sullivan replied that the plan currently suggested there would be 8,000 square feet of retail space and 25,000 square feet of housing. Ms. Bettman stated that the City also had the Vertical Housing Zone as a tool and wondered why in this situation it would not be considered for use. Mr. Weinman responded that the project was not within the boundary of the Vertical Housing Zone. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4920 approving a multiple- unit property tax exemption for residential property located at the northwest corner of West MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 4 Work Session th 11 Avenue and Lincoln Street, Eugene, Oregon; Eugene Downtown Cohousing LLC as applicant. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Zelenka wished to note that his support for the project was due to its location in the downtown core area, where he believed incentives were needed to create multiple-unit housing. D. ACTION: Resolution 4921 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property thth Located at 534 East 14 Avenue and 535 East 14 Alley, Eugene, Oregon (West University Sus- tainable Housing LLC, Applicant) Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4921 approving a multiple th unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 534 East 14 Avenue and th 535 East 14 Alley, Eugene, Oregon; West University Sustainable Housing LLC as appli- cant. Mr. Weinman explained that the proposed apartment project consisted of nine units approximately one block west of the West University Park. He noted that the developer had built another project about a block from the proposed project that had qualified for a MUPTE one year earlier. He stated that the project would be in an area zoned R-3, Residential, which allowed for a minimum of 20 units per acre and a maximum of 56 units per acre and this project fell in the middle of that range. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Weinman said eight units would have four bedrooms and one unit would have five. Ms. Bettman averred that the project would not be located in the urban core. She considered it to be located in the University neighborhood and she felt that projects would be built there regardless of whether the MUPTE was granted. She also thought the City should require development in that area to meet the maximum density requirement as she believed the project was “taking away” units by tearing down existing housing. She questioned just how much they were increasing density by building the new project on that land. Ms. Bettman asked how housing was designated to be “not good” housing stock. She said it seemed like a subjective designation. Mr. Weinman replied that in this case it was the owner’s decision. He stated that the back units that were off the alley were definitely in very poor condition. He noted that there were currently six units on the property and the proposed project would increase that number to nine. Ms. Bettman reiterated her feeling that it was not a high enough density. She noted that the development proposal included retaining trees and asked if the developer could guarantee that the trees would live through construction. Mr. Weinman responded that it was not part of the MUPTE program to require it but he believed the applicant would make an “honest effort” to retain the trees that were there. Ms. Bettman asked if the neighborhood understood that there was no guarantee that the trees would be retained. Mr. Weinman replied that in knowing the chair of the West University Neighborhood he believed he understood that you can’t guarantee this sort of thing. Ms. Bettman opined that given that this could not be enforced it should not be advertised as a component of the project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked how a unit was defined. Mr. Weinman responded that he would provide a copy of that section of the code. He believed that a unit could technically include one with a shared kitchen. Ms. Solomon related that she had spent time in the University area and was dismayed by the quality of the housing. She was glad that the applicant would improve the housing stock. She had been pleased to see the letter indicating unanimous support from the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Clark said he was also interested in the effect on net density. He suggested that it would be useful to include an analysis of the effect of a MUPTE application on taxes both in the short-term and the long-term over the useful life of the building. He also wanted to see an analysis of the net effect on on-street parking. He believed that if the City moved away from allowing MUPTE applications in the University neighborhood the result would be that more high-rise, multi-unit developments would occur that would intensify the pressure on the parking problems in that area. He also expressed interest in seeing how this would affect the City’s sustainability goals. Mr. Weinman stated that he had received a handout from the applicant earlier in the day. He provided copies of it to the council. He explained that it indicated that the City would break even on the property taxes it would forego after 11½ years. He said every year after that point the City would collect approxi- mately 700 percent more in annual tax revenue than it would without the MUPTE right now. Ms. Bettman asked if this took into account the loss of existing revenue. Mr. Weinman affirmed that it did. Ms. Solomon was impressed by the developers’ commitment to sustainable practices. She thought the project could possibly be used as a standard by which the bar would be set for future development. She also noted that the project contained over 60 percent open space. She averred that this was consistent with the council’s goals to increase density and open space. Mayor Piercy felt the questions that remained included whether they were still trying to “densify” the area or not; was the City still trying to preserve single-family units in that area. She also thought a certain level of criteria in terms of sustainable building elements should be included, noting that currently it was all voluntary, if the MUPTE boundary continued to include the University area. Mr. Zelenka said in the future discussion of the MUPTE he wanted to look into having applicants cost out sustainability features. He wanted to know what the MUPTE was “buying” and how they knew what they were “buying.” The motion passed, 3:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 6 Work Session