Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2007, Work Session, December 3, 2007, Work Session, and December 12, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.November 21, 2007, Work Session B.December 3, 2007, Work Session C.December 12, 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\M080128\S0801282A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon November 21, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Planning Process for Eugene Water & Electric Board Riverfront Property City Manager pro tem Angel Jones recognized the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) commissioners who were in attendance. She introduced Associate Planner Nan Laurence to provide an overview of recent activities. Ms. Laurence said that City and EWEB staff had been working to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to outline the process for master planning of the EWEB site. She said binding aspects of the MOU pertained to the process of master planning, such as appointment of an advisory team and participation of the community at large. She said other aspects of the MOU were description and nonbinding on the council or any other regulatory body reviewing the master plan; those would include the description of open space or mix of uses. She said the EWEB commissioners had reviewed and unanimously approved the MOU. She said the master planning process was structured to provide as much council involvement as possible while maintaining protocol around the issue of quasi-judicial decisions, namely that the council could not participate in the development of a plan that they would later be involved in evaluating. Ms. Bettman felt there were inconsistencies between the EWEB process and the process undertaken with respect to the hospital. She said the council had passed a motion asking for the provisions of the MOU to be brought back for discussion, not approval. She said there was no reason, because of its quasi-judicial role, that the council would have to endorse or approve the MOU. She saw the definitions of mixed use and open space as a land use issue and the council directing staff to utilize those definitions via the MOU was a land use decision. She said the council could adopt those definitions in a parallel process. She commented that the MOU was intended to define the role of staff, but it did not; it did discuss timelines and if the council agreed to those timelines it would violate its quasi-judicial role. She said the agreement was between staff and EWEB; the council could approve the tenets as they applied to the citizen advisory committee and appointment process but should not approve the MOU. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the only reason for the council’s approval of the MOU was because the MOU committed the council to certain actions. He would be willing to craft a different motion that would address Ms. Bettman’s concerns. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked if there was a quasi-judicial conflict with the council’s endorsement of the MOU. Mr. Klein said in his opinion there was no problem; approving the definitions of open space and mixed use were not binding commitments that the City, in its regulatory capacity, would apply. He said the MOU could also be clarified to indicate that it was an agreement between EWEB and City staff; throughout the process staff had made it clear to EWEB that nothing in the MOU could bind the City in its regulatory capacity. He said the motion could be revised to indicate the council was only approving specific items and the City Manager was agreeing to the rest of the MOU. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the council would agree to select four members of the advisory committee and staff would develop criteria for selecting committee members and a recruitment process. Mr. Zelenka recognized that the definition of mixed use in the MOU was not binding on the council, but he felt the intent of the mixed use definition could be more clearly articulated. He would support a revised motion to approve only specific items and not the entire MOU and urged the City Manager to closely review the agreement before signing it. He also did not think the City staff's role was as clearly defined as it could be. Mr. Pryor said his intent was to acknowledge the collaborative nature of the endeavor and reach an understanding on how to proceed. He said the MOU was not a contract and not binding on the council; signing it would be a demonstration of good faith, which EWEB had already shown with unanimous adoption. Mr. Clark thanked EWEB and City staff for their efforts and the EWEB commissioners for their demonstra- tion of a desire to work cooperatively to determine the future of the riverfront property. He would support the MOU as written or as revised. Ms. Taylor said she would support a revised motion, but wished the council could be more involved with the planning process. She saw no point in approving the entire MOU. Mr. Klein pointed out that if the MOU was changed, it might need to go back to the EWEB commissioners; simply revising the motion consistent with his suggestion would allow the City Manager to sign the same MOU that was approved by EWEB. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to endorse the portion of the Memo- randum of Understanding between the City Manager and the Eugene Water & Elec- tric Board that committed the City Council to reviewing and approving selection criteria for the citizen advisory committee and to selecting four members of that committee. Ms. Ortiz was pleased at the prospect of working with EWEB to use the property in a wise manner that would benefit the community. Mr. Pryor said he could support the motion if it maintained the spirit of cooperation. Ms. Bettman questioned why the MOU should be entered into if it was nonbinding on the council. She expressed frustration with the restrictions imposed on the council regarding a hospital but the permissiveness of the EWEB riverfront property process. She felt that the rules should be applied consistently to both situations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 2 Work Session The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Laurence said the Downtown Plan policies cited on page 171 of the agenda packet were adopted into the land use code and were binding. B. WORK SESSION: Update on Street and Lighting Fee Development Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided an overview of recommendations from the council Subcommit- tee on Transportation Funding Solutions, which consisted of a package of five potential new revenue sources to begin to address the shortfall in transportation system funding. He said the recommendations before the council for consideration were a street and bike path lighting fee and a street utility fee based upon parking. Mr. Corey reviewed the list of assumptions for the street utility fee and said the annual revenue target, subject to council direction, was $6.5 million. He said single-family residential units would be assessed $4.50 per month; nonresidential assessments would be calculated on the basis of $4.75 per month per 1,000 square feet of established parking area. He reviewed the list of assumptions for the street and bike path fee and estimated an $850,000 annual revenue target. He said examples of residential rates were $.80 per month for arterials and collectors and $.70 for local areas and multi-family residential assessment would be the same, multiplied by the number of distinct addresses per property; nonresidential rates could be a flat fee or per unit assessment. Mr. Clark was concerned with moving forward with either fee so soon after the voters had defeated the gas tax. He wanted to see the City reach a solution to the entire problem and suggested not discussing the fees until after discussing a bond measure, as that could assure failure of that measure at the polls. He recommended that the entire package of solutions be sent back to the subcommittee for reformulation. He did not want to see the council move forward with a piecemeal approach. Mr. Pryor stated that the subcommittee considered many different options before arriving at its package of recommendations. He did not think it would be useful to reconvene the subcommittee. He agreed that a piecemeal approach could be a problem, but the recommendations had been separated into components because of timing issues. He was willing to discuss presenting an entire package of solutions. He felt the street utility fee would be difficult to sell to the public as a fair and equitable option. He suggested considering assessment of nonresidential properties on a graduated scale based on the fact that only a portion of most parking lots was actively used. Ms. Taylor stated she would not support a street utility fee. She thought it would be fairer to charge by the car and homeowners without a car should not have to pay. She objected to charging special fees for City services and said the council should find ways to raise more General Fund revenue, as street maintenance was the City's responsibility. She said a bond or levy could be presented to the voters. She urged the council to consider a business tax to increase the General Fund and using reserves to pay for streets. Ms. Bettman felt that work on different funding options should move forward in parallel. She was willing to support the fees generally, in concept, but had some concerns with the specifics of the methodology. She supported parking as the nexus for the assessment. She was generally comfortable with the staff recommen- dations, but had an issue with excluding private parking lots and calculating the assessment on the minimum required parking in the code. She said that adjustments for credits and reductions were often used only by certain people and everyone else would make up the difference. She asked how many cars could typically be parked on 1,000 square feet. Mr. Corey replied that it depended on the size and configuration of the lot. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka remarked that the City was facing a backlog because transportation system funding had not been forthcoming from either the State or federal levels. He urged the council to eliminate the sunset provision on the $.02 gas tax. He was unwilling to use the General Fund to pay for fixing potholes at the expense of police, fire, and children's programs. He was willing to consider implementing the street utility after the levy was placed on the ballot in May 2008. He asked how shared parking would be charged proportionately to customers. Mr. Corey said the assessment could assign the number of spaces per commercial square foot, lineal foot of street frontage or floor area, for example. Mr. Poling asked if there had been any attempts to join with other cities to talk to the County about the potential for a countywide vehicle registration fee. Mr. Corey replied that a work group composed of employees in positions similar to his in other jurisdictions had been convening for several months to discuss possible regional solutions. He felt that work group could convince the cities to approach the Lane Board of County Commissioners with unified support for regional funding options such as a registration fee or countywide gas tax. Mr. Poling suggested that the cities could adopt the same resolution requesting a countywide solution for presentation to the County. He had concerns with the fees that were being discussed, but would support moving forward at this point. He was interested in the possibility of a business tax and urged the council to discuss that option. He asked how many businesses there were in the City of Eugene. Fred McVey, Public Works, estimated there were approximately 6,000 nonresidential customers. Ms. Solomon stated that she was committed to supporting the subcommittee's package of recommendations. She agreed that the timing of options could be reconsidered. She was not in favor of assessing nonresiden- tial properties on the basis of the amount of asphalt; the assessment should be based only on parking spaces. She did not think that people could opt out of paying the fee if they did not own a car as everyone still benefited from a good road system regardless of whether they drove a car. Mr. Clark said he was concerned with how moving the fees forward would appear in the media and be perceived by the public. He thought the level of trust that would be violated would not be worth the ground gained in moving forward with the fees. He advocated for rebuilding trust with the voters and building support for a solution, particularly a countywide solution. He was willing to be part of the subcommittee reconvened to develop a new package of solutions that could gain common support. Ms. Bettman hoped to see the options refined to the point they were usable tools and hoped staff would be directed to bring those refinements back to a work session. She said that could include emergent ideas such as a business license fee. She said one problem with using the facility reserve was that only certain departments had contributed to that reserve. She said the City should conduct a study to determine if it would be cost effective to do billing internally instead of contracting it out. Regarding residential and nonresidential methodology for the street utility fee, she said she could never support allocating 2.1 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Pryor indicated he was open to new ideas and agreed with Mr. Poling's suggestion that all the cities in Lane County advocate for a countywide solution. He was interested in the possibility of using facility reserve funds for streets and wanted to discuss that during the upcoming budget process. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the subcommittee had recommended asking the County to consider a vehicle registration fee and other options, as only the County had that legal authority. He was generally supportive of the street utility fee with parking as a proxy and the assessment of nonresidential properties was scaled appropriately. He liked the two-tier approach for the street lighting fee, but was not certain how an "opt MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 4 Work Session out" provision would function. Mr. Corey said if the council wished to pursue an "opt out" provision, staff would develop a methodology for neighborhoods on local streets. Mr. Zelenka said that some neighborhoods were considering different types of lighting. He would support researching the feasibility of an internal billing system and was opposed to reconvening the subcommittee, although he welcomed any new ideas that Mr. Clark might want to offer. Ms. Taylor said she preferred to discuss funding options as a full council instead of at the committee level. She felt that pursuing a countywide solution was the best approach as most cities shared concerns with transportation system funding. She was not in favor of a lighting fee, which would be questioned by people who lived in areas without street lights. Mayor Piercy said further discussion of the backlog was important to building trust and it was necessary to begin the education process well in advance of putting a measure on the ballot. Ms. Bettman said the responsible approach was to continue to refine the fee options, which had broad-based support. She was in favor of placing a measure before the voters in May 2008 and the City had already done much work to educate the community about the problem. She said an important factor in the success of a ballot measure was the level of support from the council. She said that residential rates should be tiered and nonresidential rates should be based on the square footage of available parking, whether pervious or impervious, and the likely actual amount of parking spaces per that square footage instead of a random diminished or reduced number to avoid placing an unfair burden on residential customers. Mr. Clark did not think the gas tax failed because people did not like the tax; it failed, at least in part, because of the perception it was not fair. He said a new package was needed to achieve the council's goal. He was willing to consider refinements at another work session, but would not favor forwarding either fee to a public hearing until after the May 2008 election on the bond measure. Mr. Poling favored a flat rate for residential parking and was willing for staff to continue to refine the fee concepts. Regarding Ms. Taylor's comments regarding questions about a lighting fee from people who lived on dark streets, Ms. Solomon said that was exactly what she was hearing from constituents who paid taxes but lived on streets that were deteriorating. She remarked that taxes were originally intended to fund essential services like police, fire and roads and over time many other things had been added to the City's budget; however, people still expected that their taxes would pay for roads. She would be interested, for that reason, in pursuing a General Fund option for streets. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to a council work session in early 2008 a refined proposal for a street utility fee and street and bicycle path lighting fee for discussion. Ms. Ortiz said much work had been done and she was unwilling to start over, but agreed it was not wise to discuss implementing a new tax so soon after the voters had defeated the gas tax. She was willing to have further discussions on options, although she did not want to see General Fund resources used for streets. Mr. Zelenka hoped it was implicit in the motion that the council would not take any action on the fees until after the levy vote. He said the council would continue to work through the package of subcommittee recommendations. He supported working with other jurisdictions toward a countywide gas tax. He said MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 5 Work Session that any new taxes should be simple and straightforward. He understood the "opt out" provision would apply to areas without street lighting. Mr. Clark said he would support the motion. He suggested polling the public during the City's next survey to determine what percentage of the General Fund budget people perceived was used for street maintenance. He felt that many people thought the General Fund was already used for streets and he supported looking at that option. Ms. Bettman asked for a list of the departments that contributed to the facility reserve, along with an estimate of the percentage contributed by each department. Ms. Taylor stated she would vote for the motion, but did not support either fee. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 3, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) and ORS 192.660(2)(h) Mayor Piercy convened an executive session of the City Council to deliberate with staff designated to negotiate real property transactions and to consult with council regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Mayor Piercy adjourned the executive session at 5:35 p.m. and convened the work session. B. WORK SESSION: Recruitment for City Manager Position Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell directed the council’s attention to the subcommittee’s recom- mendations for the new city manager selection process. He reviewed the recommendations and asked for comments and suggestions from the council. Mr. Poling asked for clarification of the recommendation that the mayor would preside over the meeting and facilitate the interview process. Regarding a question about whether the mayor was considered a part of the council and had a role in hiring the city manager, City Attorney Glenn Klein said under the charter the mayor was not part of the City Council, but would preside at all meetings and vote in case of a tie. He said that would include council meetings with the recruiter or city manager candidates. Alana Holmes, Recruitment and Selection Manager, continued to review the recommendations. She explained that there could be about ten to fifteen minutes at the end of each interview for a quick debriefing and to allow councilors to make any notes on the candidate, followed by a more thorough debriefing with the recruiter at the end of the interview process. Lauren Chouinard, Human Resources and Risk Services Director, said sufficient flexibility was built into the schedule to allow for follow-up questions if necessary. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was necessary to ask the same follow-up questions of all candidates. Mr. Chouinard said it was not necessary; the follow-up questions would be expanding on or clarifying issues that were raised during the interview, based on questions germane to all candidate interviews. He said a new topic could not be raised in follow-up questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 3, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Holmes said the subcommittee recommended ten final questions to be asked of each candidate; each councilor would develop one question and two additional questions would be added for a total of ten. She said each councilor could develop his or her own questions or select from a master list of questions and the full council would approve a final list of ten questions to be asked in each interview. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Holmes said the mayor could offer questions for consideration by the council. Ms. Bettman asserted the subcommittee had agreed that each councilor could contribute a question and that question would be asked of each candidate; the entire council would choose two additional questions. She said if the council voted on the questions, then it was possible that one or more councilors would not have a question on the list. Mr. Chouinard said the intent was to avoid having three councilors ask substantially the same question. He said the council could review the full list to assure there were not repetitive questions, but each councilor would still have one question; there was no veto. Mr. Pryor said the subcommittee was clear that the questions had to be within an appropriate framework. Mr. Poling suggested that each councilor submit two questions and in the event there were duplications, a councilor's second question could be chosen to assure everyone had a question on the list. Mr. Clark supported the suggestion that each councilor submit two questions. He asked if the subcommittee had recommended the two additional questions be selected by consensus or majority vote. Ms. Bettman moved that each councilor contribute their own question and that the entire council select two questions by a majority vote. Mayor Piercy said she could not see how that would avoid duplication of questions. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Clark thought it would be wise to consider something beyond a simple majority for selecting the two additional questions because those questions represented an opportunity for the council to show consensus on what was important to it. Ms. Taylor said a majority was acceptable to her. She liked the idea of councilors submitting two questions each and the two additional questions being selected from that pool. Mr. Zelenka suggested that councilors each submit several questions to assure a range of questions that would elicit information from candidates in a systematic way. Mr. Pryor suggested the councilors could put forward ideas for topics or issues that should be addressed in the interviews and staff could assist in drafting questions on those for the council's consideration. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that each councilor submit one ques- tion and two additional questions would be selected by the full council. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to require an affirmative vote from at least six councilors on the two additional questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 3, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz hoped that the ten questions would be balanced and would address a range of issues of importance to the community. She was neutral on the need for at least six affirmative votes for the additional questions. Mr. Zelenka said the basic questions that were standard human resource questions could be asked and answered in a written supplemental that the council could review in advance and the interview process reserved for councilors' specific questions. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment allowing each councilor to submit several questions, one of which would be included in the list of ten questions, and the remaining questions would be a pool from which the council would select supplemental questions. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor accepted the friendly amend- ment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Chouinard asked councilors to submit all of their questions to Ms. Holmes by December 12, 2007. Ms. Holmes continued with the review of the subcommittee's recommendations. Ms. Bettman asked that the forced ranking between candidates be identified as "advisory only." Ms. Holmes asked councilors to reserve January 12 and 13, 2008, for interviews. Ms. Holmes summarized a discussion of the interview process. She said if the council narrowed the list to two candidates and after interviewing those finalists on Sunday found them both still compelling candidates, the recruiter could be asked to obtain additional information on those candidates. She said that the recruiter, Bob Neher, could help the council further refine the process for selecting candidates for interviews and narrowing that field to two finalists if necessary. Ms. Holmes reviewed the composition of the internal interview panel. All councilors asked to have the city manager pro tem included on the internal interview panel. Mr. Clark asked if the council would vote on the list of community members to include on the external interview panel. He expressed some dissatisfaction with the approach used during hiring of the police auditor as he felt the panel was not as representative of the community as he had hoped. Ms. Holmes said a list of community members developed from the enhanced list of those invited to the community forum would be proposed to the council by staff. She said it would be up to the council how it made a decision on that list. In response to questions from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Chouinard said that 90 minutes had been scheduled for external stakeholder interviews, to include candidate responses to the interview questions and follow-up questions from panel members. Ms. Holmes added that the council would be provided advisory feedback forms from external interview panel members following the interviews. Ms. Bettman suggested specifying that each candidate interview would last 90 minutes, with responses from the candidates limited to four minutes. Mr. Chouinard cautioned against being too specific and retaining flexibility in the process, depending on the number of candidates to be interviewed. Ms. Ortiz was not in favor of selecting external stakeholders primarily from the same pool used for the police auditor process. She felt the external panel should be as large as possible and the council should not MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 3, 2007 Page 3 Work Session vote on panel membership. She noted that many people could not take a full day away from work. She encouraged opening the process to anyone in the community who wanted to participate. Mr. Chouinard cautioned against a process that was too casual; if someone wanted to participate they needed to commit to the entire day so that each candidate met with the same group. He said participants would not be compensated, but the City would provide lunch. Mr. Zelenka asked how the external interview panel questions would be selected. Mr. Chouinard said panel members should submit their questions in advance and staff would select from among those for a list of questions to be asked each candidate. Ms. Solomon suggested that invitations to the social event on January 11 should come from the mayor and the council, not just the mayor. There were no objections. Ms. Holmes reviewed the steps for future consideration, including reviewing current market data on compensation for the city manager position, finalizing the city manager job description, planning the final background check process, determining how the contract negotiation process would be managed and the mayor and council's approval of the employment agreement obtained. Ms. Bettman noted that the document still referenced the mayor and council when it had been determined that the council would be conducting background checks and approving the employment agreement. Ms. Holmes provided councilors with copies of the applications for city manager. She said they were divided in to three categories: first tier applicants, second tier applicants and third tier applicants who did not meet the minimum qualifications. She asked that councilors review the applications and be prepared to identify those the recruiter would be asked to conduct a more extensive information search on. Ms. Solomon said it would be helpful to have a matrix similar to the one used during the last recruitment process to organize the review of applications. Ms. Holmes said she could provide an updated matrix. Mr. Chouinard said the recruiter would also be asked to describe how he sorted applications into the three categories. Mr. Luell reminded the council that the applications were confidential. He determined there was no interest in scheduling another subcommittee meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 3, 2007 Page 4 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session/Workshop Bascom/Tykeson Room, Eugene Public Library 100 West 10th Avenue—Eugene, Oregon December 12, 2007 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that 30 minutes had been added to the agenda in order to address the supplemental budget. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Supplemental Budget #1 City Manager pro tem Angel Jones apologized for adding the supplemental budget discussion to the agenda on short notice. She said staff were available to answer questions and hoped that the council would be able to adopt the supplemental budget at the conclusion of its discussion. Ms. Bettman stated that staff had responded to many of her questions and she was satisfied that the supplemental budget was within policy. She noted there was an additional $75,000 in the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) budget for the West Broadway project and asked how that reconciled with the $350,000 already added to the URA budget. Planning Director Susan Muir explained that the council approved the funds on December 10 to reimburse the Planning and Development Department for expenditures on behalf of the URA. Ms. Bettman said she had many more issues with the transactions that did not involve General Fund moneys and the decisions that were made regarding the allocation of beginning working capital to ongoing projects and reserves. She concluded that there should be a review of reserve policies to assure adequate funds for operations and appropriate levels of reserves. Mr. Clark said he would support a work session on reserve policy issues. Mr. Poling noted that the City had received national recognition for its financial management. He asked if changing reserve policies would jeopardize the City's bond rating and ability to borrow money in the future. Central Services Director Jim Carlson replied that would depend on the nature of the changes. He said the City currently had good financial policies in place, including reserve policies, but he would support a council review. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling asked if the issue should be discussed at a joint meeting of the council and the Budget Commit- tee. City Manager pro tem Jones agreed that involving the Budget Committee in a review of policies was consistent with the committee's role and the interest in policies expressed by its members. Ms. Bettman reiterated that her biggest issues were with funds such as the Telecommunications Fund and Fleet Reserve, where decisions appeared to be very discretionary. She was concerned with how to address the General Fund deficit projections from a policy level. She cited several perceived inconsistencies with the adopted numbers in the FY08 budget. She questioned the accuracy of Footnote E on page 120 and said it did not appear to reconcile with information in the capital budget. Budget Manager Kitty Murdoch explained how the amounts were calculated and said the figures were net of all transactions. Mr. Clark said he had no questions about the quality of staff work, but believed the council's role was to provide oversight and it was appropriate to periodically examine policies. Mr. Carlson said the City's fleet reserve policy was one of the best for equipment replacement and was used for both General Fund and non-General Fund fleet equipment. He said carrying over a large amount of money, as noted by Ms. Bettman, was necessitated by the City's efforts to implement a new fire equipment apparatus master contract that would allow purchase of multiple pieces of equipment over a ten-year period without having to go out for bids on each individual piece. Mr. Zelenka arrived at 11:50 a.m. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to approve Resolution 4922 adopting a supplemental budget and making appropriations for the City of Eugene for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Ms. Bettman said she would support the supplemental budget with deep reservations and said she viewed questioning the budget as her job and that should not be perceived in a negative way. She was not certain how the new budgeting for outcomes process would impact the budget document or financial policies. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for their attention to the budget and looked forward to a discussion of the City's financial policies. Ms. Taylor indicated she was in favor of a policy discussion and had concerns about the budget. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. WORKSHOP: City Council Goal - City Hall Complex Interim City Manager Angel Jones introduced Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects to lead the discussion. Mr. Cohen introduced design team members Steve Simpson, Doug Macy, Ellen Teninty, and Barry Pack who would participate in the presentation and discussion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Cohen said the recent change in the planning horizon from 2008 to 2010 raised a number of issues. He said council would be updated on the design, public involvement process, and public opinion research in order to inform its discussion. He referred to the project values and position statement and said the goal was to develop a compelling vision of a city hall complex inspired by an intense public involvement process and reflecting community values. He said four key design drivers had emerged: sustainability, sense of welcome, efficiency and planning for the future; design options had been distilled to two and each of those would be depicted with two variations. He said variation "a" represented immediate consolidation and variation "b" represented incremental consolidation. He said both options could accommodate 25 years of growth space with expansion capability, offered underground parking and were models of universal accessibility. Mr. Macy and Mr. Simpson used a series of drawings to illustrate the design options for a new facility on the current City Hall site. Mr. Cohen stated that pursuant to council direction in October, the design team moved forward with planning for a patrol facility on Site E, near the intersection of 2nd Avenue and Garfield Street. He said a two-story facility would accommodate patrol function needs and preserve sufficient parking on the site for fleet and personal vehicles. He said the site met all of the requirements for a patrol facility and could be adapted to a precinct facility in the future. Facilities Manager Mike Penwell reported on the status of the three potential patrol facility sites: D, E and F. He said the owners of sites D and F were not interested in selling; Site E was owned by Lane Transit District (LTD), which was willing to make approximately 3.5 acres of the site available, contingent on approval by the board of directors. He said there had been discussions with General Services Administra- tion (GSA) regarding use of a portion of the federal building for municipal courts and related offices. He indicated that the Veterans Administration was interested in the space and GSA was expected to make a decision in 30 to 45 days. Mr. Cohen said the cost of immediate consolidation was estimated at $188 million and incremental consolidation at $154 million; those costs were based on real designs and escalation to a 2010 construction start, as well as construction to LEED silver standards for the patrol Facility and LEED GOLD or even PLATINUM for the City Hall. In response to questions from Mr. Poling, Mr. Cohen said an eight percent annual inflation factor was used in the cost estimates. He said if the federal building were not available, that would require redesign of the City Hall facility and recalculation of costs. Ms. Bettman commented that the City would not own the federal building space and the Atrium Building would become a liability if the City could not dispose of it to help offset the $188 million cost. Mr. Cohen pointed out that was one option and the design team would return in March 2008 with more information about options and variations for incremental consolidation. Mr. Pryor indicated his preference for the symbolism and welcoming design of options 1a and 1b. Ms. Taylor said she liked option 1 and was in favor of using space in the federal building. She thought landscaping should consist of large trees instead of trees that could be easily removed. She asked if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 3 Work Session plans would transfer to another site. Mr. Cohen said it was unlikely the exact plans could be transferred as each site was unique, but what was learned through the design effort could be applied to another site. Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor's preference for option 1a and liked the integration of the council and City functions in one accessible location. Mr. Poling also liked option 1a, particularly the mid-block entrance and bicycle parking against the building, which provided better security. Ms. Solomon also favored option 1a and preferred the more formal urban forest landscaping approach, instead of trying to recreate native habitat. Mayor Piercy determined there was consensus regarding urban forest landscaping. Ms. Bettman stated that she liked option 1a, but preferred the supporting elements in the second option. She preferred a Northwest-inspired design instead of steel and glass. She felt that a connection to nature should be reflected in preservation of riparian areas and access corridors as well as access in a dense urban environment to community public spaces, instead of using urban land for plazas. She said softness should be a part of the building design instead of being achieved through landscaping, which increased maintenance costs. She objected to investing in renovations to a building the City did not own and felt that locating a police patrol facility at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street with a large surface parking area was contrary to sustainability. Mr. Penwell remarked that GSA had been considering separate ownership of the portion of the federal building that might house municipal court functions. Mayor Piercy appreciated the connection to the river and green elements in the designs and preferred option 1. She noted there was a sky bridge from the current City Hall to the Lane County building across Pearl Street and wondered whether a similar feature would be possible in a new facility to maintain that connection between governmental entities. Mr. Poling commented that he would not be interested in the federal building except on a temporary basis during construction as the intent of a new city hall facility was consolidation. He pointed out that a police patrol facility would require significant parking as officers could not rely on public transportation or bicycles to report to work, particularly in an emergency situation. Mr. Zelenka said he liked option 1 and suggested the addition of a water feature to the plaza area at the entrance. He wanted to see an architectural design that was more reflective of the Northwest and less steel and glass. He was in favor of using the federal building for court functions, but the City would need ownership or a long-term lease of the space to justify the cost of renovations. He understood the need for significant parking associated with a patrol facility, but felt the $24 million cost was too expensive. He asked how much of that cost was land acquisition. Mr. Cohen said land acquisition would be approximately $1.7 million assuming approximately $12 per square foot. He said the design was still being developed and the facility could be more functional and modest because it was not a public building like City Hall. Mr. Zelenka stated that the city hall and patrol facility projects needed to move forward in tandem. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she was disturbed about building a massive parking lot and if the patrol facility were downtown it would be easier to use public transportation. She suggested that officers could drive their patrol vehicles home. She liked the idea of using the federal building if the space could be purchased or leased on a long-term basis. She asked how a new building would be more linked to the river than the current City Hall. Mr. Cohen said the intent was to begin developing 8th Avenue as a great street and a connection between the park blocks and the river. Mr. Clark concurred with the importance of encouraging alternate modes of transportation, but was pleased that the police facility would have adequate vehicle parking, as that was an integral part of effective police functions. He did not believe that individual transportation modes would ever be eliminated and should be accommodated in future plans. He said that consolidation was a major consideration and would support use of the federal building as a transition tool. He hoped that some element of the city hall building could face east to represent facing the future. Mayor Piercy agreed that the architecture should reflect Northwest design, but it should not be expensive or difficult to maintain. She urged that the parking lot site across 8th Avenue be considered in the great street concept. She noted that patrol vehicles were shared from shift to shift and it would not be feasible for officers to take vehicles home. Ms. Bettman thought it was a mistake to equate use of wood as a design element with the problems associated with the exterior of the current building. She cited many examples in which wood was used as a structural or design element effectively. She objected to surface parking that was not underground or embedded in the building because that was an inefficient use of land. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks about use of wood as a design element. He liked the concept of using the lobby area as a multi-purpose public use space in option 1a. He was interested in how the parking lot property across 8th Avenue would be integrated into the great street concept and linkage to the river. He wanted to provide police with a patrol facility that met their needs in the least expensive way, which was why it would be located outside of the downtown area and include surface parking; structured or underground parking was several times more expensive. Mr. Penwell said that parking associated with the patrol facility would be a subject for further discussion at the March 2008 meeting. Ms. Teninty determined that councilors preferred design option 1 and asked for any additional feedback for the design team to consider. Mayor Piercy observed that buildings were always more attractive at night when they were lighted and hoped to see daylight design drawings at the next work session. Mr. Macy determined there was agreement with the placement of the council chamber in the design and asked for other comments on chamber design. Ms. Bettman said she would prefer more wood accents, but did not feel there needed to be a water feature visible from the chamber. She wanted a simple, utilitarian space that was comfortable and provided good acoustics. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Clark agreed that utility was important and the design should emphasize that the building and chamber were there to serve the entire community, not elevate the council. Mr. Poling did not feel the council chamber should be the key feature of the building, but there should be a natural flow from the lobby area into the chamber. Mayor Piercy emphasized that the building was the people's space and the design should reflect that. She agreed with the need for utility, but felt the building should also be something of which the community could be proud. Mr. Zelenka did not feel the council chamber needed to be a separate space and liked the access from the lobby/atrium area. He hoped that the chamber could be designed in a way that it could be available to the community as a multi-purpose space when not being used for council functions. Ms. Taylor liked the features of the current council chamber, but agreed it could be used more often. She felt that elevating the council made it easier for the audience to see it during meetings. Mr. Clark liked the concept of surrounding the chamber with as much glass as possible to provide a sense of transparency and reflect the close interaction between local government and its citizens. Mr. Zelenka suggested locating the council chamber in a way that directly connected it to the lobby/atrium. Mr. Pryor encouraged the concept of a municipally modest structure to convey to voters that the proposal incorporated community values and was accessible, but not arrogant or self-important. He felt that was best expressed in design option 1. Mayor Piercy noted that the current council chamber was used frequently by both the council and community functions. She thought a water feature with functionality such as green practices would make sense. She hoped that the building could have a cultural connection that recognized community diversity. The council took a short break. Ms. Teninty reported that the ongoing conversations with the community had been very productive and the public had been involved in developing the key design drivers and design aspects such as accessibility, visual arts, landscaping and sustainability. She reviewed public outreach activities to date and said that public input had been valuable in refining design options. Mr. Pack reviewed the results of a follow-up poll conducted in November 2007, which gathered public opinion in three areas: perception of the council's job performance, location of the police patrol facility and support for a city hall and patrol facility bond measure and sequencing of other bond measures and election issues. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a qualitative difference between rating the City and rating the council on issues and whether the public regarded serving on the council as a "job." Mr. Pack replied that the poll was geared toward potential viability of a bond measure and one of the aspects of voters' support was how the measure was referred to them. He said the council was used in the poll because it was the council, not the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 6 Work Session City, which would refer a bond measure. He felt the term "the City" was too general and would have produced different results as each person would have a different interpretation of what that meant; the public had a common understanding of the specific term "City Council." Mr. Clark said that the general public did not draw a distinction between the council and City staff; the council was considered to be responsible for what the organization did. Continuing, Mr. Pack said poll results indicated a majority of the public did not trust the council to make the right decisions about downtown development and revitalization, which remained the number one concern and contributed to an unfavorable assessment of the council's performance although there did not appear to be a common definition of revitalization. He said the location of the police patrol facility was not a concern as long as community-based policing continued to be pursued. Ms. Bettman observed that questions about a bond measure only referenced a city hall and did not include a patrol facility. Mr. Pack replied that while that was not shown in his presentation, the bond measure questions asked of the public always referred to both facilities. Mr. Clark asked what level of confidence was needed for a ballot measure to pass. Mr. Pack said that sixty percent or more was realistic, but cautioned that the poll did not represent an in depth analysis of the issue. Mr. Pack concluded his presentation by noting that voters' trust had eroded and the perception of the council continued to be an obstacle to passing a bond measure, downtown revitalization and street maintenance were top priorities although voters were not certain how to address them, location of a patrol facility was not a concern as long as there was a police presence in City Hall, and efficiency, safety and fiscal responsibility remained important. Mr. Pryor remarked that research represented a perception, not reality, but should not be dismissed because people voted based on their perceptions. He said the data brought up as many questions as it answered and the council needed a better understanding of the lack of voter confidence in its performance. Ms. Bettman wanted to know if it made a difference to voters whether a proposal had unanimous council support and why people thought the last three patrol facility bond measures had failed. Mr. Zelenka agreed there was a concern about lack of confidence in the council and while that had some basis in the council's performance, it also was related to decades of relentless government bashing across the country that created an environment of general distrust. Mr. Pack felt the council had an opportunity to change the public's opinion because it shared top priorities— downtown revitalization and street maintenance and preservation—with the community and finding solutions to those problems would gain community support. Mr. Clark said the council had an opportunity to gain the community's trust by identifying smaller scale problems that it could demonstrably solve before referring a larger solution to the transportation funding problem. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy remarked that the poll results confirmed the wisdom of extending the planning horizon and providing the community with more information about the proposal. She agreed there was a perception that the council could not work together, but pointed out that the council had successfully passed earlier bond measures related to parks and the library. She said there were a number of short-term actions that could be taken to improve the downtown area to illustrate the council's ongoing commitment. Mr. Penwell said that delaying the bond measure until 2010 effectively extended the planning horizon but there were some issues that could not be delayed, including the deterioration of the current City Hall structure and lack of space. He said staff and the design team would return in March 2008 with recommen- dations for completing the planning process and intermediate steps over the next two years. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for the community involvement process and the information that had been collected. She felt that information would be valuable in other council endeavors and help to inform the council's decision-making. She said it would be a challenge to determine how much repair and renovation should be done to current buildings while waiting to put forth a bond measure. Ms. Taylor asked to have a discussion of what type of repair should be done to the current building included in the next work session. Ms. Bettman asked if councilors were interested in reconsidering the Sears site. Mr. Poling commented that the site had been considered and rejected because locating the City Hall there would not contribute to revitalizing the area and increasing evening activities. Ms. Taylor said people were told that site was not available because it was already committed to another use. Mayor Piercy suggested the council could consider the possibility of using the Sears site. Mr. Penwell said that the council would need to provide that direction to the design team in another work session because it was contrary to current council direction. The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 8 Work Session