Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: March 10, 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 December 7, 2007, Executive Session, December 10, 2007, City Council Meeting, January 9, 2008, Work Session, January 14, 2008, City Council Meeting, January 28, 2008, Work Session, January 28, 2008, City Council Meeting, and February 11, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.December 7, 2007, Executive Session B.December 10, 2007, City Council Meeting C.January 9, 2008, Work Session D.January 14, 2008, City Council Meeting E.January 28, 2008, Work Session F.January 28, 2008, City Council Meeting G. February 11, 2008, 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\M080310\S0803102A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 7, 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. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(a), the Eugene City Council met in executive session to consider the employment of a public officer. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 7, 2007 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall December 10, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Kate Perle , 4740 Wendover Street, spoke as a resident of Santa Clara and an active member of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO). She wanted to encourage the council to extend the code criteria so that it would ensure the public process surrounding annexations would be “transparent.” She related that the SCCO supported Attachment B, the alternative ordinance, in the council packet. She added that the SCCO requested that the postings for any public hearings be posted in more public places for two successive weeks prior to the public hearing, and that one of the postings should be at the proposed site with two other postings at the nearest intersection of arterial or collector streets. She averred that there was not a central location in the neighborhood where such items could be posted. Additionally, she asserted that Eugene Code (EC) 9.7815 still allowed “staff a large latitude” to modify private annexation requests “without any guiding criteria.” She opined that this was an on-going conten- tious process in the neighborhood. She feared that without specific guidelines, the processes would leave the neighborhood “as vulnerable as it did under the boundary commission.” Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, quoted three letters to the editor of The Register Guard. One was written in regard to the proposed ballot measure to fund road repairs and asked how the mayor and City Council could contemplate a new City Hall in the face of the preservation and maintenance backlog. One suggested that the Police Chief was selecting laws to uphold rather than upholding all of them. The third alluded to the unseating of some of the councilors and mayor in the next election. He averred that he did not stand alone in his complaints about the City. He opined that Mayor Piercy and six councilors seemed to ignore 65 percent of Eugene. He thought it possible that some of the council did not care what the majority of residents thought. He would support recalling seven of the elected officials if the council continued to “spend, spend, spend” on items on which he had testified at the present meeting and at previous meetings. Cheryl Hunter , 5320 Nectar Way, supported the preservation of the Beverly and Green properties, deemed the Amazon Headwaters. She observed that questions were now coming up about the amount of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting appraisal that was part of the eminent domain proceedings. She would question a value that was excessively higher than the $600,000 that the Green property was offered in 2004. She was concerned that the tone of the discussion felt to her like people were focused on blaming each other for this difficult situation instead of thinking of what was best for the land. She found the provisions of the eminent domain proceedings “ridiculous” and did not believe the City should be responsible for attorneys’ fees. She asked everyone to work on finding a solution that involved considering the “unique value” of the land. She felt that preserving the land as an undeveloped park was not the same as creating a park in west Eugene or north Eugene. She asserted that parks in that area were most likely created out of land that had been farmed for at least 100 years. She acknowledged that when inventorying park land, south Eugene had more, but averred that it was a different kind of land; a different decision to preserve the land. She believed that the land had regional value and would “enhance the image of Eugene like Portland’s forested parks do.” Kathleen Leonard , 5020 Nectar Way, related that she had supported the 2006 Parks and Open Space bond measure because she believed some of the money would be used to purchase parcels of land with high natural resource value that were at risk of being developed and not land outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She declared that she would not have supported the bond had she known land outside of the UGB was in the parks plan. She felt Eugene had an obligation to preserve the last native areas within the UGB. She would now be “a lot more skeptical” when faced with future parks bonds because she had lost her trust in the City and its “process.” Benton Elliott , 1313 Lincoln Street, #605, spoke in support of acquiring the Amazon Creek headwaters properties. He wished to register his disagreement with an editorial piece in Sunday’s The Register Guard, which posited that there had not been an adequate opportunity for public comment. He had been pleased with the opportunity he had to share his views and believed that it had been an adequate public process that had lasted many months. He also felt the writer had made a “NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) claim,” in that the editorial piece had asserted that the driving force behind the movement to support eminent domain were the people who lived or owned property in that area. He underscored that he lived near the downtown area. He appreciated the property and used it for hiking because he lived in a condominium complex and did not have a yard. He added that the preservation of the property should be supported because the flora and fauna warranted protection. Ken Neubeck , 4915 West Hillside Drive, commented that his grandchildren came to his house to walk through the Beverly and Green properties. He recalled the book, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect, written by Robert Heilbroner in which Mr. Heilbroner had expressed concern about the impacts of human activities on the environment and that people did not seem to have a sense of the future. He related that Mr. Heilbroner had postulated that people make decisions that have negative implications for people they will never live to see. He believed the kinds of decisions that were being made with regard to the property around the Amazon Creek headwaters were difficult given that it involved money, different stakeholders, and different points of view. He underscored his belief that 100 years from now people would enjoy the property without any recollection of how it came to be preserved or they would wonder why that area was developed and changed. He urged the council to think about future generations. Carla Hervert , 2948 Dry Creek Road, explained that she was a nurse and an exercise physiologist who worked as a therapist in cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation at Sacred Heart Hospital. She said they tried to improve the quality of life for people with heart and lung disease through an extensive exercise and education program. She stated that during the time of year in which field burning occurred she saw first hand how her clients were affected. She related that they often missed therapy sessions because they did not want to chance going outdoors and those who did come were on more oxygen and took more medication. She remarked that she had a few patients who used up to seven different inhalers. She noted that steroids MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting were often used as a “rescue medication,” but if used over a period of years they had powerful side effects. She pointed out that emphysema was the fourth leading killer in the country and that heart disease was on the top of the list. She related that one patient of hers was diagnosed with osteoporosis and had the “bones of a 90-year-old” though she was 50. She listed some of the issues people experienced as a result of breathing particulate matter. Bonnie Blomberg , 5271 Overbrook Lane, said she had asthma. She stated that field burning aggravated the condition and she had been hospitalized several times with asthma attacks, pulmonary infections, and pneumonia after periods of such burning. She related that she had been diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) one year earlier. She felt she was too young for such a “devastating” diagnosis. She underscored that she had never been a smoker. She stated that her doctor attributed her diagnosis directly to field burning. She underscored that her life would be shortened and she would never experience life without invasive drug therapies. She questioned whether she would have COPD if she lived in an area where there was no field burning. She said everyone in the Willamette Valley damaged their lungs when they breathed air polluted by field burning. She declared that this was too high a price to pay to live in this area. Charlotte SottoSandra Guffin read a letter written by , 2580 Hayden Bridge Road, Springfield, that voiced her support for a ban on field burning. It explained that she had serious health problems aggravated by field burning. She believed that it was unfair for the grass seed industry to infuse the air with “terrible contami- nants” in the face of research that showed there were alternatives to burning. She said her father, a farmer, had opposed field burning because he deemed it unnecessary and harmful to public health. She concluded her letter by asking the council to “act now to end the practice of field burning in the Willamette Valley.” Elizabeth Paul , 3837 Potter Street, stated that she had emphysema and her lung capacity had been reduced to 25 percent. She said field burning affected her lungs and exacerbated her asthma, sometimes causing infections for which she was prescribed a heavy dose of prednisone. She related that at the end of the field burning season she usually found that her lung capacity had dropped perceptibly. Kathy Hoover , 1316 Audel Avenue, recalled the birth of her grandson in August 2002. She had helped to care for her daughter and grandson in the days after his birth. She related that one hot day when he was a few days old they were forced to close all of the windows because of huge clouds of smoke. It had been very uncomfortable and she promised her grandson she would fight field burning. While she acknowledged the “trials and tribulations” that farmers face she found nothing to convince her that the practice of field burning should be permitted to continue. Lisa Arkin , 1192 Lawrence Street, thanked Councilor Clark and Mayor Piercy for attending the town hall meeting on field burning. She said she had been asking since the 1980s for a stop to field burning. She stated that a legislative effort to stop the burning had failed. She noted that Oregon State University had conducted “copious” studies on grass seed growing and had determined that there were alternatives to burning. She believed it was unnecessary to burn fields to be a good grass seed farmer. She stressed that the issue was health. She presented a petition signed by approximately 650 people that asked the Eugene City Council to take the legislative steps to end field burning and to hold a work session on the issue. David Thor Johnson , 4986 Hunters Glen Drive, thanked the councilors and Mayor for their work. He averred that trees helped to filter the air and as such preserving the Amazon Creek headwaters properties would help to remediate burning practices. He opined that five of the elected officials were doing “the right thing. He asked the council to “stay the course, finish the job, do the right thing, protect the planet, [and] protect the ‘urban growth boundary’ forest.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Eric Selker , 3765 University Street, explained that he was a biologist. He thought it was “crazy” to burn fields, especially given the extended conversation about global warming and the criticism given to countries like Indonesia and Brazil for burning forest land. He said the main reason he wanted to testify was to support maintaining the Amazon Creek headwaters properties in a natural state. He appreciated efforts made to do so. th Samantha Chirillo , 157 East 27 Avenue, Apt. 3, co-director of the Cascadia’s Ecosystem Advocates and a member of the Climate Crisis Working Group, recalled that Mayor Piercy had said at a July meeting that the council would do “whatever necessary” to protect the Amazon Creek headwaters forest. She said the council also looked into how it could apply eminent domain proceedings in that situation without being too costly to the City. She related that the two organizations she belonged to had not forgotten this meeting and had been taking people on hikes through the properties in question as they believed it was an important “educational microcosm of a mature forest ecosystem.” Ms. Chirillo conveyed the organizations’ request to apply eminent domain proceedings to the property for its “unique recreational value” and “ecosystem services” it provided, such as “carbon storage, soil and water conservation, and species habitat.” She remarked that she “bristled” when she heard discussion of the costly nature of a land purchase at this time when there had been earlier such opportunities to do so for far less. She noted that money had been spent to restore Amazon Creek downstream from the properties. She believed that development on the Beverly/Green properties would undo this restoration work. She declared that if the council did not take action to protect these properties, the image of a sustainable Eugene would “be for naught.” She also asked the council to pass a resolution in opposition to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Western Oregon Plan revisions. She averred that the revisions threatened 2.5 million acres of forest and would accelerate old growth cutting without regard to needed riparian buffers or habitat connectivity. She added that she and several other people were working on a plan for Lane County to gain carbon credits. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, commented that the grass seed burning was perhaps the way Eugene should be affected by urban sprawl. He asked where else did grass seed go but to large plots at the edge of cities. Continuing, he said safer streets would be a good idea. He related that traffic calming had been addressed in London by making streets smaller and able to be used by “not just the cars but also by people.” He believed that if all streets were narrowed, the amount of maintenance and the cost of installa- tion would be reduced. He asked the City to consider reconstructing the streets to make them smaller. He also felt that traffic calming elements would reduce the amount of traffic on roads. Dennis Casady , PO Box 5028, opposed the eminent domain taking of private property, in this case with the “excuse of saving the Amazon headwaters.” He stated that the City had done nothing when Woodleaf Village had been constructed on Fox Hollow Road. He said a tributary of Amazon Creek ran through that development and had not been protected; still was not protected. He stressed that the Beverly property was zoned for residential development. He averred that if the owners would not willingly sell the property, the City should “just walk away.” th Bob Cassidy , 1401 East 27 Avenue, related that he had attended a City Club program on the problems that drinking around Autzen Stadium during home football games caused. He said in that discussion there had been much discussion of the overtime the police put in to handle traffic. He did not believe it was necessary for the police to do so. He thought volunteers could serve that function. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Cassidy had heard concerns that Lane Community College needed to expand and might move out of the downtown area. He commented that he would like to see the downtown area become an education center rather than a retail area. He thought the Centre Court building would be perfect for classroom spaces. Mark Rabinowitz , Box 51222, remarked that the “obvious” solution to grass seed burning would be to convert to growing food instead. He quoted David Brower as having said we should thank the current president for calling himself an environmentalist and we should thank him again when he becomes one. He quoted Mahatma Gandhi as having said when asked what he thought of western civilization that he thought it was a good idea. He said the City of Eugene thought it was the World’s Greatest City of the Arts and Outdoors. He believed that there were “many more cities” that had more protected upland habitat than Eugene did. He declared that sustainability meant things that could continue indefinitely “after the oil was gone.” He called the Broadway redevelopment project “corporate welfare for real estate speculators,” noting that it had been rejected. Mr. Rabinowitz questioned why the City was “willing to spend tens of millions” on the urban renewal project but had not acted to protect the last unprotected area along Amazon Creek, which he thought was the largest stream in Eugene. He wondered how many of the councilors who would vote on the properties had actually visited them. He averred that the trees there were not replaceable in anyone’s lifetime. He asserted that clear-cutting forests was the “second largest contributor to carbon pollution of the atmosphere.” He said this was changing the climate. He declared that the thickness of the portion of the air that was breathable in the atmosphere was as wide as the distance from the western edge of Eugene to the eastern edge of Springfield. Tom Halferty , 4510 Manzanita Street, stated that he had enjoyed all of the parks in the Eugene area. He had hiked through all of them. He had also enjoyed the regional parks. He supported saving the Green and Beverly properties. He said there were big trees on the properties that were storing a lot of carbon. He also noted that there were a lot of sensitive species that lived there. He believed it was important to save the wonderful things that the City did have for its future generations. He suggested that if the City wanted to call itself the Greatest City of the Arts and Outdoors, the outdoors part of it needed a boost. Robert A. Olsen , 32810 Sisters Loop, commended the City Council for revisiting the Amazon Creek headwaters issue. He averred that as representatives of the City the acquisition decision would have a permanent implication. He said if development was the choice the environmental result would be irreversi- ble. He did not believe there was a foolproof formula to estimate the property’s value. He stated that the use of recorded market transactions’ prices as an indicator of land value to a society was generally based upon a specific set of assumptions that were rarely met in practice. He said it was assumed that everyone had complete knowledge of the property and that viable competition existed. He asserted that market prices of comparison prices could be totally irrelevant unless the parcels were identical to the one that was being appraised. He also thought the council should be aware that property appraisals were not measures of property value in an economic sense, rather they were guesses about the transaction price that might occur “under sale conditions.” He declared that if there was not a willing buyer or seller there was “by definition no market price,” only a price that was agreed “by fiat.” He briefly recounted a history of the properties. He questioned how the property that had been acquired for $325,000 by Mr. Green and went subsequently unsold at $400,000, had become a “million dollar fantasy.” Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, asserted that there were “certain members of staff” that would try to “derail any efforts” to place the Beverly/Green properties into public ownership. She opined that when it “served the City” to have a low appraisal price the price was low and now it was higher so that it would “serve the City to try to halt the purchase of the parcels as it was too high.” She asked where the appraisals MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting were. She found it suspicious that they were not in the public record. She asked how it could be determined if the appraisals were done in a fair and legitimate process. She asked if a comparative market analysis had been conducted. She wondered if the appraisals had looked into how much the property next to the Beverly/Green properties had sold for “a couple of years back.” She asked if anyone had spoken with the planners involved in the “denied” planned unit developments (PUDs). She wondered if anyone had factored in the potential for landslides on those properties. She wanted to see another appraisal, or “something transparent” that she could trust. Michael James , 1565 Polk Street, #6, stated that he was a geologist that had worked on the projects on both pieces of land. He thought the City needed to consider the risk factor related to the area developed above Dillard Road and the public services that go along Dillard Road. He believed it was a large risk as there was a big stability problem. He said this was why so many developers had left the property. He averred that the properties were excellent in terms of how green they were and their connection to the Ridgeline Trail. He thought the higher appraisal could be knocked down. He reiterated that the City should proceed based on risk. Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, called this a momentous occasion in a “string of momentous occasions around the ecosystem of Eugene.” He asserted that the Amazon watershed represented approximately 60 percent of the land area of Eugene. He believed that the majority of the people who had looked at the properties understood their “tremendous value.” He declared that the real issue was not whether to protect the properties but how they should be protected. He thought eminent domain proceedings were a last “and necessary” resort to protect the properties. He said he would be “delighted” to see the City proceed along those lines. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She thanked the people who testified on field burning and acknowledged that it was difficult to come out for a council meeting when one was not feeling well. Councilor Clark also thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. He wished to thank in particular the people who testified on field burning and Ms. Arkin for all her work on the issue. Councilor Clark said that he had taken his children to the Beverly/Green properties so that he could have a better sense of what was being considered. He addressed Ms. Warnes specifically, as he disagreed with conversations that made City staff into the bad guys. He believed that City staff did their best to do their jobs as directed by the City Council with the greatest amount of integrity. He appreciated staff’s work very much and did not believe staff had a “secret agenda.” Councilor Zelenka thanked everyone for coming, especially those who were not well. He said it was clear to him that there were bad health effects from field burning. He averred that he would ban field burning “in a heartbeat” if he could. Councilor Zelenka thanked all of the supporters for the Amazon Creek headwaters for coming to the council meeting. He had appreciated Mr. Matthews’ final comments that eminent domain needed to be taken seriously and utilized judiciously as a last resort. Councilor Bettman echoed the gratitude of her colleagues. She also thanked the people who had respiratory illnesses for making the effort to testify. She requested a council poll to have a work session on field burning so that the council could identify what leverage they had. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman noted that the item on the Amazon Creek headwaters was last on the agenda and requested a change in the order so that the supporters did not have to wait so long. Councilor Taylor also thanked everyone for coming. She said while the council could not do anything to regulate field burning they could at least look into seeing what the City could do to exercise its influence. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for coming. She agreed that the council should look into what could be done to stop field burning. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the councilors that there was not support for changing the order of the agenda. She thanked everyone who testified in support of preserving the Amazon Creek headwaters. She said now the challenge was to figure out “how to get there from here.” In closing, Mayor Piercy noted that she had spoken with Mary Spilde, president of LCC, and Ms. Spilde had indicated that LCC was interested in staying downtown. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - August 13, 2007, City Council Meeting - September 12, 2007, Work Session - September 24, 2007, City Council Meeting - October 8, 2007, Work Session - October 8, 2007, City Council Meeting - October 24, 2007, Work Session - November 19, 2007, Boards, Committees, and Commissions Interviews B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy deemed them, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4922 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 City Manager Angel Jones asked Budget Manager for the Finance Division, Kitty Murdoch, to review the item. Ms. Murdoch explained that this was the first supplemental budget of the year, an annual true-up of the estimates that were put into the budget and audit of the actuals in order to adjust the estimates. She said MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting there were several million dollars in changes to the budget but most were attributable to “cleaning up the estimates” in the budget. She noted a couple of items: ? The City was recognizing $3.9 million in grants in the General Fund; included in that was $500,000 from the State of Oregon to help with Olympic Trials expenses. ? The City had enough money to make the $900,000 transfer to the Capital Budget. ? $148,500 was being allocated from the Contingency Account for projects pending approval by the council. ? There are projects related to the election held in November, 2007, that were not included in the Supplemental Budget as costs were still being calculated. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, observed that there had been a change made in the 2008 budget document regarding supplemental budgets. He cited page B-14 of the budget packet and noted that there was a paragraph describing adjusting adopted budgets that contained a clause that allowed for 10 citizens to petition for a budget hearing that had been stricken since the previous year. He said it had been taken out without a directive from the council or the Budget Committee. He felt this had been an opportunity for a public hearing and that it had “magically disappeared.” He remarked that this was an area in which trust was taken away. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman asked Ms. Murdoch to explain the change in language. Ms. Murdoch said this had been discussed in the last Supplemental Budget process. She clarified that the City had been misquoting Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) regarding the provision about supplemental budgets. She stated that there was no longer a provision that required a process such as Mr. Barofsky described and so it had been removed. Councilor Bettman said it seemed to her that given the importance of transparency and public involvement, this change should have been noted in the budget packet. Councilor Bettman remarked that she did not understand the adjustments that had been made because of initiatives in departments that had not been completed or pursued. Ms. Murdoch explained that those included items such as an allocation of $86,338 for the sustainability program startup, costs that had not been completely expended, a $125,000 contribution from Springfield for the Police Interoperability Grant, $66,550 in one-time funds for River Road/Santa Clara, $154,400 for opportunity siting and standards, and $152,944 for a neighborhood park. Councilor Bettman observed that there was $1.6 million in additional funds available in the beginning working capital in the General Funds main sub-fund and there was new revenue of $619,000. She surmised that out of the $12.9 million there was a $900,000 capital transfer and another $900,000 capital transfer and this would make $1.8 million. Ms. Murdoch clarified that there was only one $900,000 capital transfer. Councilor Bettman countered that she thought the council had directed there to be an “automatic” $900,000 to be placed in a capital transfer. Ms. Murdoch reiterated that there was only the one amount. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said as she went through the budget and reviewed the working capital she understood that about one-third of the $12.9 million was grant money and reappropriations. She noted that in looking at the telecom registration/licensing fund, the beginning working capital had an additional $1.2 million. She asked for an explanation. Ms. Murdoch responded that she would have to look it up specifically. Her best guess was that it consisted of unspent funds from the previous year that were allocated for projects that were not yet completed. She reiterated that the beginning work in capital adjustment always consisted of more revenue or fewer expenditures than had been anticipated when the budget was created months earlier. Councilor Ortiz asked if the language that Mr. Barofsky was concerned with could be brought back into the budget document. Ms. Murdoch replied that the council could pass a policy to do so. Councilor Ortiz averred that even if it was no longer required by State statute the council should ensure that it stayed embedded in the budget policy. Ms. Murdoch stated that the current public process already requires an advertisement with notice for a public hearing. Councilor Bettman asked if the negative balance in the beginning working capital for the Municipal Airport Fund was attributable to money transferred out in order to build a transfer facility from Connect Oregon money. Kurt Corey, Public Works Director, replied that he was uncertain but this would be a good assumption. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Murdoch explained that the beginning working capital adjustment across all funds on a $500 million budget was a reduction of $6.2 million. She stated that there had been increases across all funds in this supplemental budget of $8.3 million that went into the operating budget. She said the capital budget had been reduced by almost $2 million in this supplemental budget. Additionally, there had been transfers, increases to reserves, and balance available as a result of the change in beginning working capital. Councilor Bettman asked if this represented an indirect transfer if one was decreasing and the other funds were increasing. Ms. Murdoch replied that this was not so; the supplemental budget had to do with resources and how spending came out and what the audit said happened in the previous year. She reiterated that the process sought to adjust estimates in the case of the working capital reconciliation and there were also reserves for capital and encumbrances for purchase order reconciliations. She underscored that the supplemental budget dealt with a variety of accounting adjustments. Councilor Bettman commented that there was a point at which there would be a supplemental budget because the budgeting process “guessed” at what the beginning working capital would be and when the money came in over that amount then it “gets plugged into different departments.” She declared that the council did not have a discussion about that money; “it just shows up like this and is a big number.” She asked why excess money was not being put into the reserve for revenue shortfall. Ms. Murdoch clarified that the $8.3 million was not General Fund money, rather it was from all different funds including the Telecom Fund, capital projects funds, wastewater funds and so on. It was not necessarily money that could be placed into the reserve for revenue shortfall. Mayor Piercy asked if any councilors objected to taking action at the present meeting. Councilor Bettman indicated that she opposed taking action at this time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman averred that the reconciliation was not specific to the way the budget was looked at. She asserted that it was “just numbers” and the justification were “always just in terms of … doing this to be consistent with the budgeting process.” She wanted to see a breakdown of the $12.9 million. She understood that some of the funds that had beginning working capital that turned out to be higher than necessary were not General Fund. She asserted that the money was being “funneled” back into the departments. Ms. Murdoch said she was unsure how she could quickly satisfy that requirement in that there were thousands of transactions. She related that she and her staff had worked long hours on it. Councilor Bettman questioned whether the $12.9 million could really represent “thousands of transactions.” Ms. Murdoch reaffirmed that this was so. She asked what information would satisfy Councilor Bettman’s concerns. She explained that the Finance Division had journals with hundreds of lines of beginning working capital adjustments. She said the City had “many, many” purchase orders; the purchase order encumbrance reconciliation took all of the outstanding purchase orders and looked at what was actually spent and what the balances were. She stated that staff tried to inform the council by each fund what each of those encumbrance balances were, but if the councilor wished to know where every one of the encumbrances went back in each department it would be time consuming. Councilor Bettman averred that she was not interested in the encumbrances. She said she would be happy if staff indicated that two-thirds of the money was to pay for projects that were planned and funded in 2007, but the money was not expended in 2007. Ms. Murdoch responded that this was what staff attempted to do in the transaction summary by showing every fund, every capital carryover reconciliation, beginning working capital reconciliation, and so on. Councilor Bettman observed that there had been an increase of $1.236 million in the Telecom Fund. She wanted to know if this was money that was appropriated for something, and did not get expended, or was additional money. Ms. Murdoch replied that $701,202 of that amount was the result of the beginning working capital reconciliation and the encumbrance estimate reconciliation. She further explained that $307,000 was the result of capital projects to complete the satellite radio receiver site upgrade approved on Fiscal Year (FY) 07 Supplemental Budget 1. Councilor Bettman averred that there was no reason that the unencumbered money from the Telecom Fund could not be put into the reserve for revenue shortfall. Ms. Murdoch stated that there was $1 million in existing appropriation, or previously authorized telecom projects, which was not being reappropriated out of the $1.2 million. She said staff tried with every fund to inform the council as to what exactly was happening with the money. She welcomed any specific questions. Mayor Piercy closed the City Council meeting and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 9:17 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 1045 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 Ms. Murdoch recapped the $489,673 in proposed changes to the Urban Renewal Agency Budget. She noted that the primary change was $350,000 included for additional operating budget authority for the downtown district. She said the additional spending was for the cost of the public process held over the summer, possible appraisals and environmental review, and additional legal costs for negotiations with developers as well as additional staff costs already incurred during the public input process as well as additional staff costs anticipated to occur during the rest of the Fiscal Year beyond what was included in the FY08 adopted budget. Mayor Piercy noted that Councilor Pryor had brought up a point of order. She asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to verify that she did not need consensus to take action on the previous supplemental budget item. City Attorney Klein affirmed that this was so. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened the City Council meeting. 3. (cont’d.) PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4922 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve Resolution 4922 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion. She believed the council should wait until the outstanding questions had been answered. Councilor Bettman also opposed the motion. She wanted information on potential discretionary money in the budget and whether the council could place it in the reserve for revenue shortfall. She said if no one asked questions staff would do as it always did and the budget would remain status quo. She declared that some funds were “swimming in money.” Councilor Zelenka thanked Councilor Bettman for bringing this to the council’s attention. He shared her concern and would oppose the motion. City Manager Angel Jones stated that the reason the funds existed and how they were handled was based on council policy. She stressed that each one of the funds had included a discussion as to how the fund would be treated. She said the question that Councilor Bettman had raised was very different than how the Supplemental Budget should be treated. She indicated that if there was a will of the body to have a discussion on all of the assumptions around the funds and how those funds were treated based on the policies under which they were operated, it should be scheduled for a work session. Councilor Zelenka supported placing this discussion into the queue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark observed that there was a fairly strong sentiment among the public that the government took from one pocket and put into another. He said he would oppose the motion. Councilor Pryor asked if it would be expedient to adopt the Supplemental Budget at the present meeting. Ms. Murdoch replied that the Supplemental Budget affected the accuracy of the FY09 budget. She said staff liked to use accurate numbers in the budgets and working capital and if those numbers were not available they would not be able to report them in the budget document in a timely way. She underscored that for finance staff it was nice, but not essential. Councilor Pryor asked if adoption of the Supplemental Budget at the present meeting would prevent the council from discussing and potentially making shifts to the FY09 budget. Ms. Murdoch responded that adoption would not preclude such action. She added, however, that if funds from the Telecom Fund that were there because projects from the previous year had not been completed were moved, it was important to remember that there was no new project money, no allocation to do anything new, that had not been authorized by the council. She stressed that the money had already been approved, but if the council did not want to continue with projects that it had allocated money for previously and wanted to do something different for that money, it could be difficult to undo once the Supplemental Budget had been approved. Councilor Pryor ascertained from Ms. Murdoch that no departments would be impeded if the Supplemental Budget was not passed at the present meeting. Councilor Zelenka wanted to clarify that the council was not saying that staff was not “following the rules.” He thought the rules should be revisited. Councilor Bettman suggested that the item be taken up on December 12. She opined that since the City Hall proposal was postponed again, it was time to revisit the previous decision by council to siphon off the money that would be used to maintain the buildings and utilize it to resume this maintenance. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Solomon, Pryor, Ortiz, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Zelenka, Clark, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted against the motion and the motion failed on a 5:4 vote. Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. 4.(contd.) PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 1045 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, averred that had there been a Budget Committee meeting on the previous item it could have benefited the discussion and the Supplemental Budget could have been passed in a timely manner. Regarding the Urban Renewal Agency budget, he wanted to know how much of the $242,000 spent on options had been used, how many would expire, and what the cost of the options to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 12 Regular Meeting taxpayers of Eugene had been. Additionally, he said based on the current rate of inflation he would recommend placing the bond for the Road Fund on the May ballot as the cost of repairs would increase. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman said the $303,752 allocated for FY08 and appropriated as an inter-fund transfer from the downtown debt service to another fund for urban renewal was for the consultant and legal costs and staff in FY 08. She asserted that now another $300,000 was being added to this and she wanted to know why the number had doubled. Community Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan explained that the scale of the West Broadway citizen process had not been considered when the budget had been approved. He said consultants had been brought on as part of the process and their fees had been a little over $100,000. He explained that the cost also included the cost of appraisals and the potential cost for a relocation consultant. Councilor Bettman expressed confusion. She asserted that all of those things had been anticipated in the first allocation. Mr. Sullivan reiterated that the cost of the consultant was not anticipated ahead of time, nor was the scope of the citizen process. He stressed that the council had directed staff to engage the consultants specifically for that purpose over a relatively short time period during the summer. Councilor Bettman observed that $205,000 had been added to the non-departmental miscellaneous fiscal transactions and asked what it had been for. Ms. Murdoch replied that this was an adjustment in funds that went directly back into downtown revitalization. Councilor Bettman asked if anyone else was “curious why that more than doubled.” She said she was curious and wanted to see a memorandum explaining what the original $300,000 had been spent on and what the additional $300,000 had been spent on. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 1045 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 9:43 p.m. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Annexation and Withdrawal Procedures; Amending Sections 2.212, 9.7055, 9.7205, and 9.8035 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Existing Sections 9.7800 to 9.7885 of that Code; Adding New Sections 9.7800, Through 9.7835 and Sections 9.8115 Through 9.8121 to that Code; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Jones explained that under new State law the City must have a process for any new annexation request starting January 2, 2008. She underscored that in order for this to occur the City must adopt a new ordinance at the present meeting. She noted that there had been a lot of discussion and one public hearing on the item. She stated that there were two versions of the ordinance, Attachment A, which consisted of the original draft with minor edits suggested by the Planning Commission, and Attachment B which included the same adjustments as Attachment A plus larger policy changes based on comments made by Councilor Bettman. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Attach- ment A as Council Bill 4960, with the following revisions on page 6 of that ordinance, as follows: ? Eugene Code 9.7820(1)(c) At least 10 days 30 days prior to the date the council considers the Planning Director’s recommendation, notice of the application that contains the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the property, the Planning Director’s recommendation and the date and time the council will consider the recommendations shall be mailed to: 1. The applicant; 2. Owners and occupants of properties located within 100 feet 500 feet of the perimeter of the subject property; and 3. The neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized by the City Council that includes the area of the subject property. Councilor Clark offered a friendly amendment in the interest of responding to the request from Santa Clara by adding the following language to EC 9.7820(2)(d)(3): ? Posted in four public places in the City for two successive weeks prior to the hear- ing date. One of the postings shall be located on the application site and two more posted at the nearest intersections of arterials and/or collectors within the boundaries of the affected neighborhood organization(s), if applicable. The maker and second accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Clark asked if the language regarding extraterritorial annexations would by de facto create a policy that would force city residents to develop septic tanks. Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), responded that the ordinance could not change anything in this regard. Councilor Bettman asserted that extraterritorial extensions were not part of the statute. She averred that residents who live in the River Road/Santa Clara area who were concerned about annexations did not understand that the implications of extraterritorial extensions were “far worse for them.” She thought having two attachments was “a little confusing.” She felt Attachment B was “far superior.” She asked if the sections that referred to such extensions could be deleted so that extraterritorial annexations would be dealt with “in a more circumspect way.” City Attorney Emily Jerome said it would be possible to do so but it was not just a matter of deleting that particular section as there were other sections throughout the ordinance that referenced extraterritorial extensions. She thought the subject should be revisited at some point because although there were not State statutes that picked up where the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission left off regarding extraterritorial extensions, the boundary commission did have jurisdiction over them. She underscored that it was within the council’s purview to revisit the extensions at a later time. She added that she was uncertain whether staff would be comfortable bifurcating the issues at this time. Councilor Bettman reiterated her question. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the question was whether the attorneys would know with a high degree of certainty that they were removing all of the sections that were necessary and were not increasing confusion by removing something that was referred to in another part of the ordinance. He suggested that one option would be to pass the ordinance as presented at the current meeting and direct staff to return with an ordinance in January that would delete the portions Councilor Bettman wanted deleted. He reiterated that it was inadvisable not to take action at all at this time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman asserted that what would need to be deleted was distinct. She said she would have preferred Attachment B. She noted that she had requested language earlier in the day to amend to change it so that it was a “type four” application with a hearing in front of the Planning Commission and subsequently appealable to the City Council. Ms. Jerome responded that this language was supplied to Councilor Bettman, though somewhat recently. Councilor Ortiz planned to support the motion as it stood. She believed it to be an important subject and merited more discussion in a work session. She was not willing to remove the language that referred to extraterritorial extensions at this point. Councilor Poling ascertained from Mr. Nystrom that sewer service could still be extended to properties outside of the city limit but inside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) with the current proposed ordinance language. Mr. Nystrom added that there were a number of provisions that went along with it that made it so that in practice it was difficult to gain such approvals because in most cases the jurisdiction wanted such a property to annex. Councilor Poling reiterated the concerns expressed regarding the development of additional septic systems just outside of the city limits. He recalled the controversy and expense that the River Road neighborhood had undergone when required to connect to sewer lines. Mr. Nystrom responded that the first question asked if an extraterritorial property requested a sewer hookup was whether the property could annex. Councilor Poling asked what would happen if the property could not annex. Mr. Nystrom replied that the next step would be a request for an extraterritorial extension. Councilor Solomon thought Ms. Jerome’s suggestion to approve the ordinance as presented at the current meeting and revisit it in January was prudent. Councilor Bettman called the ordinance a “sleeper.” She opined that it was an opening to develop private urban services outside the UGB. She felt the sections that someone who wanted an extraterritorial extension would have to comply with were “easy to comply with.” She asserted that if one could not annex, one was “already eligible” to an extension of the services beyond the UGB. She noted that one criterion was that land not be vacant and suspected that a person could put a trailer on a property to make it appear occupied. She averred that to say that the council would bring it back for discussion meant that the council would “never get rid of it.” She believed that there were “people out there salivating at the thought that we are going to pass this not realizing” that the ordinance was a “stealth weapon” to expand the UGB. She declared it to be an “invitation to sprawl.” City Attorney Klein reiterated that there was no legal prohibition to amending the ordinance; the attorneys were only reluctant to amend the ordinance “on the fly.” Councilor Bettman asserted that the attorneys did so “for other folks.” Ms. Jerome listed the amendments that she had determined to meet Councilor Bettman’s intent, which would be a motion to further amend Attachment A to delete the following: ? Section 6 and renumber sections accordingly; ? Delete references to Section 9.8115 and 9.8121 of the code in the title; ? Remove the reference to extraterritorial extensions from Table 9.7055 in Section 3 of the ordinance; ? Delete references to extraterritorial extensions from Section 8 of the ordinance which would be hereafter renumbered to Section 7 of the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 15 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the proposed ordinance in Attachment A with the aforementioned deletions. Mayor Piercy asked for a motion to extend the time. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. Councilor Poling noted that when a motion was on the table there was no requirement for a motion to extend and the motion was not acted upon. Councilor Clark wanted to ensure that the City allowed the appropriate extension of service to people within the UGB and not outside of the UGB. He felt a lot of the distrust of the River Road/Santa Clara residents stemmed from what had been required of them to hook up to sewer service in a previous time. He said he was trying to avoid a situation where the County would allow development in non-contiguous places on county land where at some point a future owner would want to annex and would be required to hook up to sewer service along with the according costs. He understood that the City would have further work with the County regarding annexation issues in the next year. He believed the extraterritorial extension issue would come up again at this time. He urged his colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the original motion. Councilor Poling stated that he had read the ordinances as presented in Attachments A and B and nowhere in there had he found reference to any extraterritorial extensions going outside the UGB. He averred that there was “no conspiracy here.” He thought it made sense for people who had property outside the city limits and inside the UGB to be allowed to pay for and hook up to sewer service. He opposed the amendment. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Zelenka, Bettman, and Taylor voting in fa- vor of the amendment. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to revise the ordinance to include the following text at the end of code section 9.7815: For annexation applications in the River Road/Santa Clara area the City shall not let an an- nexation application include the right-of-way if by doing so the annexation would cause un- incorporated property to be surrounded as described in ORS 222.750. Councilor Poling ascertained from City Attorney Klein that the additional language merely restated what the council had done earlier in the year. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Attachment B for Attachment A. Councilor Bettman asserted that the difference between Attachment A and Attachment B was that the latter required that extraterritorial extensions come before the City Council. She averred that the language in Attachment A only required a Planning Director’s decision on extraterritorial extensions and that decision was then appealable to the Hearings Official. She declared that this type of issue would not receive a public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 16 Regular Meeting Mr. Nystrom pointed out that Attachment B would elevate all annexation requests to a public hearing before the council. Councilor Clark said he might support the intention behind Attachment B but he wanted to discuss it further at a later point. Councilor Solomon concurred. She felt the item warranted another work session. Councilor Taylor said she would only support the ordinance if it was the Attachment B version. Councilor Bettman repeated her assertion that an endorsement of the ordinance as per Attachment A actually reduced the ability for the public to have input into the process of extraterritorial extensions inside or outside of the UGB. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Bettman, Zelenka, Taylor, and Ortiz vot- ing in favor of the amendment and councilors Poling, Clark, Pryor, and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted to oppose the amendment and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposi- tion. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to extend the meeting by 10 minutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to schedule a work session on ex- traterritorial extensions. Councilor Clark asked when the joint work with the County in regard to annexations was planned to occur. City Manager Jones replied that staff was trying to schedule a meeting of the joint elected officials in February for the purpose of discussing high priority items. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Domain for the Acquisition by Condemnation of Property for Park and Open Space Land near the Amazon Creek Headwa- ters in South Eugene Councilor Zelenka averred that the goal of the council was to acquire and protect the Beverly and Green properties from a willing seller but, if necessary, to acquire them by eminent domain. He said the council took the power of eminent domain very seriously and believed it should be a tool of last resort, after other options had been exhausted. He stated that discussion had been initiated with both parties. He felt optimistic that with more time the negotiations would result in willing sellers and the protection of Amazon Creek headwaters property. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to postpone the discussion on the use of eminent domain to the Amazon headwaters, to give sufficient time for negotiation to MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 17 Regular Meeting be pursued completely, until the City Council’s first meeting in June, 2008. At that time should parties not be in agreement on the preservation of the properties, the council will au- thorize the institution of proceedings of eminent domain to acquire the Beverly and Green properties. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to substitute a motion that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4945 and Council Bill 4962, ordinances authorizing pro- ceedings of eminent domain on the Beverly and Green properties. Councilor Taylor felt the council had delayed “far too long already.” She averred that negotiations could take place, and should take place, after the ordinance was passed. She said the procedure for eminent domain included negotiations and appraisals and sufficient waiting periods. She intended to make a subsequent motion that would set the dates of April 17 as a deadline for negotiations to be completed and May 27 as a deadline to file the condemnation action should a purchase agreement not be signed. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for all of the public testimony. He was interested in finding a third way to protect the properties. He was concerned that though there had been good discussion and input about what the appraised value of the properties should be, the council had a definite appraised value of the properties. He said the important thing to remember in a condemnation proceeding was that the only people who would decide the actual value that the City must pay for those properties would be the 12 members of the jury. He had been under the impression that the council needed clarification on what the sources for funds would be to purchase the properties if this was the action it would take at the present meeting City Manager Jones explained that the council would need clarification on the sources of funds if the council proceeded with any condemnation. Councilor Clark attributed the reason that some bond items failed in his ward to this type of action. He said it was an issue of trust. He pointed to the document that had been put out when the City had passed the Parks and Open Space Bond and underscored that it delineated specific amounts of money for the specific places it would be spent and listed a map that showed those specific locations. While he was interested in protecting the property he was not interested in spending all of the bond money on it. He was concerned that a jury would decide that the properties would cost the City “tens of millions of dollars” at a time that the City needed to invest in road work and public safety. He stressed that the council needed to rebuild the trust of the citizens of Eugene before engaging in this condemnation proceeding. Councilor Ortiz agreed that the council needed to find a third way to acquire the properties. She believed that eminent domain was a strong tool. She intended to support the original motion as she wanted to make sure that if the City would take that much money out the General Fund to buy park land it was because there was no other way to do it. Councilor Bettman supported the substitute motion. She declared that the action had been stalled for long enough. She asserted that negotiations and appraisals would happen after the council acted on eminent domain. She averred that the appraisals to date were not complete. She stated that the council definitely needed to move forward with actual formal appraisals. She suggested that Systems Development Charges (SDCs), Stormwater Acquisition fund money, Parks and Open Space money, and possible grant money could be used as funding resources. She said while the headwaters were located in south Eugene, the water ran through the whole city so it would be an investment in the entire city as the water contributed to flood control and water quality. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 18 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor said she had been reluctant to delay the condemnation proceedings when it was last addressed. She echoed Councilor Bettman’s remarks related to the value of the properties as a natural resource. She called the purchase of the properties an investment in the future. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to extend the meeting by five min- utes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Clark clarified that the council had contracted to have an appraisal done and the appraisal was complete. He said the City Attorney had indicated that the appraisal would be entered into any court proceedings no matter what. City Attorney Klein stated that the appraisal had been given in oral form to the council and had not been written into a report. He confirmed that the information would ultimately come out in court proceedings. Councilor Clark said it was too much money at a time in which the City could ill afford it. He believed such a large expenditure would violate the public trust. He related that many people indicated to him that they would refer this item out as a petition if it was passed. Councilor Poling wished to point out that there was not enough money in the Parks and Open Space bond to cover litigation fees and the property purchase. He stated that no federal grant money was available to property that was being taken by eminent domain. He said the cost of the land had increased as property values increased. He added that he was certain that the surrounding neighbors’ property values would increase if the land was turned into park land. He averred that this action did not serve the greater community. He opined that eminent domain was the wrong way to go about purchasing the properties. Councilor Zelenka agreed with councilors Bettman and Taylor about the value of the properties but he also agreed with Councilor Ortiz that eminent domain should be the last resort. Mayor Piercy felt that the council was protecting the Amazon Creek headwaters properties for future generations. She believed the Parks and Open Space Bond moneys were being used as intended. She said the City had tried hard to find willing sellers and had tried to work with conservation groups. She stated that so far they had not been able to push this forward. She thought it would be in everyone’s best interest if the City did not have to take eminent domain, but she was not certain that this was possible. She underscored her feeling that the properties were an asset for all of Eugene and not just south Eugene. Roll call vote; the substitute motion failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Pryor commented that under normal circumstances he would be willing to postpone the discussion until the opportunity to try different approaches to resolve the purchase of the property without eminent domain had been exhausted. He said the reason he could not support Councilor Zelenka’s motion was that it included an authorization for proceedings of eminent domain. Councilor Clark asked if it was the intention of the maker of the motion that condemnation proceedings would begin at the deadline or that the council would reconsider those actions at that point. Councilor Zelenka responded that his intention was that should the parties not be in agreement by June the council would authorize the eminent domain proceedings at that time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 19 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman opined that the language that said the council would authorize the institution of proceedings of eminent domain was ambiguous because the council could not do so. She felt that the motion postponed the question until then and then if there “was enough momentum on council” it would happen. City Attorney Klein stated that his interpretation of the motion was that it postponed until June and his advice to the City Manager would be to have it on the Tentative Agenda for that month. Councilor Zelenka said while it was not possible to dictate to the council what to do in the future, the council could declare its intent. Councilor Bettman called this “creating an illusion” that eminent domain would occur in June. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment that would amend the language to read that the discussion would be postponed to the first council meeting in June at which time the City Manager would be directed to return to the council with the ordinances for eminent domain on the Beverly and Green properties. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Clark said he wanted to support the motion because he wanted to have time to make a different potential reality with the land that needed protection. However, he was concerned that this item was being postponed to a time that seemed more politically convenient. He was not certain he could support the motion. Councilor Bettman found it unfortunate that the motion did not prescribe what would happen in June. She foresaw, however, that the purchase could benefit from the precipitous decline in the housing market. She thought the council should pursue a new appraisal based on the change in the market at that time. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Zelenka, Taylor, Ortiz, and Bettman vot- ing in favor and councilors Pryor, Poling, Solomon, and Clark voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. The meeting adjourned at 10:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 20 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 9, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The City Council held an executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660(2)(a). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council into public session at 2:07 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: City Manager Recruitment Mr. Zelenka said the list of panelists was too long. He suggested that each councilor select three or four people and then see if the panel “covered everyone.” Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to have the City Councilors and Mayor each select four panelists for the City Manager candidate interview panel. Mayor Piercy agreed that this was a reasonable number of people. Ms. Bettman objected. She did not come prepared for this. She believed this would just multiply council majority influence on the panel. She had been willing to support having one person from each of the organizations on the existing list with no overlap. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka clarified that his motion would reduce the number of panelists from 54 to 36. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of using the voting process. He did not think the process would work if they only selected four people. He suggested that each councilor selected 20 from the list of organizations and then the council would vote on them. He thought this would provide for the best representation. He added that he did not know the people who served on the different organizations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute a motion to direct each councilor to select their top 20 out of the organizations and then the council would vote to determine the top 30 out of that list. Ms. Taylor asked if a person could still submit the name of an individual. Mr. Pryor responded that the submission of an individual would be one selection out of a councilor’s list of 20. Mr. Zelenka explained that his reasoning for suggesting that they select people was that when listing organizations one did not know who exactly they were selecting. Human Resources Division Director, Lauren Chouinard, said the practical application for selecting individuals was problematic. He recommended coming up with the list of organizations rather than individuals. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to include the Neighborhood Leadership Council on the list. The maker accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Mr. Pryor that it was not his intent to limit selections to the existing list. Mr. Pryor said all elections allowed write-ins. Mr. Clark supported Mr. Pryor’s revision of the motion. He said he would likely write in people that were not on the list and urge his colleagues to vote for them. Ms. Bettman asked if the councilors would be polled with the list. Mr. Chouinard affirmed that this would be the process given council approval. Ms. Bettman said the panel would be external and would interview the candidates in a “formatted way” and write down their impressions. Ms. Ortiz preferred submitting names to submitting organizations to the list. She felt that people who work for the organizations would come to the panel as part of their jobs. Ms. Taylor expressed a preference for individuals with an active interest in government rather than groups with a “vested interest.” Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Ortiz. He wanted to know the individuals’ judgments of the candidates. This was why he had wanted the clarification that the councilors could place any name they chose on the list. Ms. Bettman remarked that her opposition to Mr. Zelenka’s motion had been because it was a surprise. Having listened to Ms. Ortiz, she now felt that the councilors could select four people each. She asked how long the councilors would have to identify the four people. Mr. Chouinard stated that the Human Resources Division needed this information by January 14. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka reiterated his support for inviting the “working person” in as panelists as well as representa- tives of the different interest groups and sectors. Mr. Pryor appreciated the sentiment of wanting to broaden the representation of who gets to ask the questions. However, he felt the councilors were moving from an institution list to a “friends and acquaint- ances” list. He did not believe this would be a representative list of the community nor would it be diverse. The vote on the substitute motion was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Poling voting in favor, and Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor vot- ing in opposition. The Mayor voted in opposition and the motion failed. Mr. Zelenka clarified that he did not intend to preclude the selection of an organization along with a request that organization staff select someone. He said his intention had been that the council would review the list and ensure that all of the sectors were represented once all the names had been submitted. Mr. Clark indicated that he had not seconded the latter portion of the motion Mr. Clark rescinded his second. Ms. Bettman provided a second. Ms. Solomon observed that before she could invite people to the panel she would need to know what time the interviews would be held. Alana Holmes, Recruitment and Selection Manager, responded that the results of the poll on which weekend of February it would happen had indicated that six of the councilors were amenable to either the first or second weekend. Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to release the names of the three candidates for the position of City Manager at 5 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Solomon left the meeting at 2:32 p.m. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to hold the interviews for the three City Manager candidates for February 1 and 2. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 2:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2008 Page 3 Work Session City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall January 14, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - Presentation of 2012 Olympic Trials Banner Mayor Piercy asked co-directors of the 2008 Olympic Trials, Vin Lannana, and Greg Irwin to come forward. Mr. Lannana thanked the Mayor and City Council on behalf of “hundreds of volunteers” representing the university, and government and private business, for its support in helping keep Eugene “Track Town USA.” He stated that for two years, 17 committees had been working on every aspect of the Olympic Trials in order to make the event “something special.” He felt confident the progress made by these committees had set Eugene up for unprecedented success with the trials. He commended City Manager pro tem Angel Jones and County Commissioner Bobby Green for their instrumental help with Eugene’s successful bid for the 2008 Olympic Trials. He said Ms. Jones had also bolstered Eugene’s successful bid to host the 2012 Olympic Trials. He applauded the presentation she had made regarding Eugene’s bid, calling it “just outstanding.” He averred that without Ms. Jones’ support he was not certain Eugene would have been successful in its bid for either the 2008 or the 2012 trials. He reiterated his gratitude for the contributions of Ms. Jones and Mr. Green. Mr. Irwin echoed Mr. Lannana’s comments with regards to Ms. Jones and Mr. Green’s commitment and participation. He averred that their representation of the community had been outstanding. He presented the Mayor with the “temporary symbol” of the 2012 Olympic Trials. He said they were looking forward to the next four years of Track Town, noting that the economic implication of the next four years of track meets was estimated to be over $75 million. He felt that without the City of Eugene’s help none of this would have come to pass. Mayor Piercy conveyed her pride in the work of the City Manager pro tem for the work she had done to facilitate the Olympic Trials. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting Ms. Jones received a round of applause. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting 2. ACTION: Election of City Council Officers Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to elect Councilor Chris Pryor as President of the City Council for 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to elect Councilor Bonny Bettman as Vice President of the City Council for 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. th Deb Frisch , 3003 West 11 Avenue, thought an overpass should be constructed for people to travel safely from the downtown area to the Courthouse. She conveyed her opposition to the University of Oregon’s proposed basketball arena. She thought parking downtown should be free. She also reiterated her opposition to the exception granted to the parking lots around Autzen Stadium that allowed “tailgater” parties to happen there during home football games. She urged the council to expedite the hiring of a new City Manager. Drix , Ward 3, declared that “new is good.” He said the community had to find a way to fix roads and could not do it with forest revenue. He wanted to replace the economy with something new. He suggested that homeless people could be called “no-ads” because they did not have addresses. He also thought we could all call ourselves Eugene, instead of Eugenians. He said the holes in the downtown area represented opportu- nity as they were filled with nothing. He quipped that they were “air and space museums.” John Brown , 101 East Broadway, stated that he was speaking on his own behalf. He wished to make the th City aware of a potential real estate opportunity. He explained that 1650 West 13 Avenue was under City ownership and would soon be vacated. He said the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center had $800,000 budgeted to raze the building. He believed this would be a good reuse opportunity as the building was good and could be readapted to something else. He thought a group of non-profits could utilize the property for nothing. He suggested that the City approach the federal government and say for $600,000 it did not have to tear the building down. He hoped the council would think about this because there were many non-profit groups that could use the building. He wanted to maximize that asset. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, averred that one could not ignore the abuse of power. He believed the City Council only listened to one-third of the city population. He asked how many City employees would be fired in order for the City to pay for downtown redevelopment, buy condemned properties, and “build a trolley line” to connect Eugene and Springfield. He asked how the councilors were able to ignore the impending $40 million federal shortfall. He asked why the council could not hear the other two-thirds of the population. He asked why the councilors were not concerned about their fellow citizens that were losing their homes and had few places, if any, to turn. He wanted to see an infusion of compassion in the council’s deliberations and decisions and less concern for its present priorities. He said “trickle down economics is dead;” the City needed more heart and less development and redevelopment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, averred that those in and around the downtown subsidized edge development by having less money for maintenance for their neighborhood streets because it went to maintain streets they were not intended to use. He thought this should stop. He also felt that downtown area residents had “all kinds of cars” driving at high speeds in front of older homes. He felt that people in the outlying areas had moved there for the peace and quiet without realizing that they contributed to the noise in the downtown area they tried to escape. He wanted the downtown area to be designed for the people who lived in the pre-world war Eugene and not for suburban drivers. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, Patterson Street, provided a handout for the councilors. He hoped the media would begin to understand that the proposed basketball arena was “ground zero in a culture war.” He declared it was an “economic development conspiracy.” He accused Councilor Zelenka of demonstrating a lack of leadership. He disputed the assertion that the neighborhood supported the arena. He underscored his opposition to the University’s proposed arena project. He wanted City planners to explain to the neighbor- hood where people could appeal an alley vacation and where people could contract their own transportation study. He thought all of this should be done on videotape. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, understood that Joe Green had offered to sell his property for 10 percent below the value listed in the appraisal. She assumed the cost was somewhere between $4 million and $6 million. She agreed that this was a lot of money and that “some would say it was too much money.” She felt it was important to remember all of the personal time and money and all of the public dollars that had gone into the Amazon parcels through several planned unit development (PUD) proposals over the last decade. She averred this made it a unique situation. She believed the purchase of the Green property need not preclude the purchase of other parcels. She thought some grant moneys could be pursued and the committee to work on negotiations could work on these. She said if the council chose to accept Green’s offer she would work to find funding and to determine a win-win scenario. She stated that Santa Clara needed a park but the Green/Beverly properties needed to be protected. Kathleen Leonard , 5020 Nectar Way, Ward 2, stated that the people who were working to preserve the properties at the Amazon Creek headwaters did not want to take the opportunities from people in other areas of the City for parks. She wanted the City to be clear that all the neighbors needed was seed money so that they could approach the Forest Legacy Plan or the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) and others for grant opportunities. She reiterated that the neighbors would not stop fighting until they saw the properties would be preserved. Mark Turner , 4875 Garnet Street, Ward 2, said his home bordered the Green property. He was grateful for the consideration of the issues. He was troubled by the current situation and wanted to stress that they were not “NIMBYs” (Not In My Back Yard). He averred that the property had never been good property to develop as it was steep and wet. He declared that the magnitude of cuts and fills that would be needed to stabilize the property for the intensity of the development was impractical. He thought the system was skewed to encourage development. He recalled the City’s unwillingness to purchase the property when it would have cost $600,000 and now less than four years later a new appraisal had indicated the property was now worth millions of dollars. He asked how he, as an affected citizen, was to accept this. He asserted that when it was in the interest of development to appraise the property low, it was low, and when it was in the interest of development to appraise it high, it was high. He questioned why the appraisal had not been made public. He urged the council to preserve the properties for the City’s environmental health and for the MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting enjoyment of future generations. He asked the council to get a different appraisal if the appraisal had indeed been $4 to $6 million. Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, felt the offer from Joe Green to sell his property for ten percent below the appraised value was an “incredible opportunity.” He averred that it was critical to have “the headwaters ecosystem protected.” He referred to a “White Paper” on the Amazon Creek headwaters he had written for the Southeast Neighbors, located at southeastneighbors.org and reiterated the nine “categories of reasons” for preserving the property. He recommended the City identify and encumber $2 million in funds and projected that grant moneys could be obtained to fund the rest of the acquisition. He urged the council to accept Mr. Green’s offer. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Clark agreed that parking should be free in the downtown area. He added his support for City Manager Pro Tem Angel Jones, stating that she was doing an excellent job of serving in that capacity while a new City Manager was being recruited. th Councilor Clark thanked Mr. Brown for the information he provided regarding the 13 Avenue property. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. Regarding funding sources for the Beverly/Green properties, she said applications for the Forest Legacy and the OWEB grants had been made for 2008. She understood that the appraisal that had been presented to the council was in report form and not finalized. Councilor Taylor thanked those who came to testify. She agreed that the City needed to do whatever was necessary to preserve the Green property. She added that she was very interested in the information that Mr. Brown had shared. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for coming. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - October 15, 2007, Public Hearing - October 17, 2007, Work Session - October 22, 2007, Work Session - October 31, 2007, Work Session - November 13, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4923 Concerning Protection of Mature and Old Growth Forests in the State of Oregon D. Adoption of Resolution 4924 Acknowledging Receipt of the City of Eugene, Oregon, Com- prehensive Annual financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon pulled Item C. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted minutes corrections. She also requested to pull Item D. Mayor Piercy deemed the minutes corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items C and D passed unani- mously, 8:0. Councilor Solomon explained that Item C was a resolution concerning protection of old growth forest, which referred to the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), which was the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) preferred alternative. She supported the WOPR. She believed that currently the forests of Oregon were not being managed and that the State was being paid to not manage its forests. She felt the State could have healthy forests and healthy communities. She declared that paying a State not to manage its main resources was an abuse of taxpayers’ money. She also objected to taking up a resolution of this nature at the City Council, particularly with a one-week notice. Councilor Clark said this was a “purely ceremonial piece of work” at a time when more important things needed council attention, given that the deadline on the WOPR had passed. He felt that slipping the resolution through on the Consent Calendar was a disservice to the council’s process. He intended to oppose the resolution. Councilor Ortiz said it was not her intent to circumvent the process by placing the resolution in the Consent Calendar. She felt it was important to take a stand based on the community’s values when the opportunity arose. She supported the resolution. Mayor Piercy pointed out that the resolution said the council requested greater protection of mature and old growth forests on federal land in the State of Oregon. Councilor Pryor said this was not a simple resolution, it was something the City would do to say how it felt about a particular issue even though the deadline to do so had passed. He supported the resolution because he did not like the federal administration placing the City in a situation in which it had to make the difficult choice between the County’s revenue and trees. He stated that the County stood to lose a significant amount of money. He asserted that the federal government was saying to the County “we do not want to give you any money but if you want to cut down all your trees you can get the money that way.” He hated that the federal government put the local community in this position. Councilor Poling asked if the County had taken a position on the WOPR. Brenda Wilson, Intergovernmen- tal Relations Manager for the City, responded that she was not aware of the County having taken a position on it. She affirmed that the public comment period for the submission of comments had been midnight on January 11. Councilor Poling had agreed to move the resolution forward to the council because the council had wanted to discuss it. He disagreed with all of the alternatives proposed by the BLM. He said the resolution was ceremonial and that he would vote against it. He stressed that he was not opposing the resolution because he supported the actions of the BLM. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman disputed criticism about the timing of the resolution. She said she had submitted a letter regarding the resolution within the deadline but the council had yet to meet. She alleged that the WOPR would dramatically increase the amount of logging and the counties would only receive half of the revenue. She indicated she would support the resolution. Councilor Taylor related that she planned to present another resolution at the next meeting opposing the WOPR with more specific language. She declared that logging was “destroying the future for human beings.” She said the council should undertake anything it could do that might have some influence on the BLM plan. Councilor Zelenka agreed it was regretful that the council could not pass its resolution prior to the BLM deadline for public comment. He felt the choice that pitted the environment against the economy was an effort to divide people locally. He thought it was very important to protect the forests. Mayor Piercy stated that she had sent a letter in opposition to the WOPR, as had Councilor Taylor, prior to the deadline for public comment. Councilor Clark concurred with Councilor Pryor. He did not like the choice the community was faced with. He disagreed that the federal government had placed the County in this position. He thought it was a combination of the courts and a number of other things. He resented that the council was being presented with a resolution that said councilors were either in favor of the resolution or they were in favor of clearcutting “vast swaths” of Lane County. He declared that the truth was a “much more nuanced position” that required more discussion. The motion to approve Resolution 4923, concerning protection of mature and old growth forests in the State of Oregon, passed 5:3; councilors Clark, Solomon, and Poling voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy called for discussion of Item D. Councilor Bettman congratulated the Finance staff for an “almost entirely clean” report. She asked for an explanation of the over-expenditure listed on page 156 of the report. Finn Cronin, Financial Reporting Manager for the Finance Division, explained that the first over- expenditure was in the Urban Renewal Agency. He explained that the budget had been made two years earlier and at that time staff had estimated that half of the staff time would be spent on the Riverfront District and half would be spent on the Downtown District. He reported that last April the council had ramped up the activity in the downtown area because of the Broadway Redevelopment proposal. He said the supplemental budget in May had estimated the budget could be exceeded by a minimal amount. He explained that rather than taking up staff and council time by bringing forward a small addendum to the supplemental budget, they decided to “live with” the over-expenditure. He stated that as the costs came in for the consultants to craft some of the options, related attorney fees, and staff time to support the newly formed the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC), they had amounted to a $72,000 increase for the Fiscal Year (FY) 07 expenses. He underscored that a large portion of the increase had not been recognized until the end of July, when FY07 expenditure reconciliation was complete. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman thought the council had voted to appropriate $200,000 when it had voted to implement the WBAC. She asserted that the council had “generously funded” the activity. Community Development Division Manager, Mike Sullivan, clarified that the motion that directed the formation of the WBAC included no funding. The motion to adopt Resolution 4924, a resolution to acknowledge receipt of the City of Eugene Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2007, passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 8:34 p.m. 5. ACTION: Resolution 1046 Acknowledging Receipt of the Annual Financial Report of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 1046 ac- knowledging receipt of the Annual Financial Report of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 8:35 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax and Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 Ms. Jones asked Director of the Public Works Department, Kurt Corey, to introduce the item. Mr. Corey explained that the hearing sought to solicit public input on whether or not to maintain the status quo with regard to the Eugene gas tax, presently set at 5 cents per gallon. He reviewed the timeline to present; the first 3 cent component of the gas tax was implemented in January, 2003, and an additional 2 cents was added in January, 2005, the latter planned to sunset after three years. He underscored that the backlog of street maintenance was now in excess of $170 million. He said after three years there were no additional state, county, or regional solutions at this point. He noted that the committee convened by the Mayor had confirmed that a gas tax was a fair and equitable component of a comprehensive package of funding solutions. He stated that action on this item was scheduled for January 28. He listed the potential actions the council could take, which ranged from reinstituting the gas tax to taking no action with the 2 cent component subsequently sunsetting. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, noted that fuel stations had indicated a move to rid the City of the tax. He believed the City should save legal and ballot costs by repealing the tax when it sunsets. He averred that automobiles were becoming more fuel-efficient while the wear and tear of the streets increased. He said every time the City annexed more lane miles for public use the maintenance costs for the City increased while funds did not increase commensurately. He asked if the City Council was willing to “starve” the rest of the City to insure that the people who lived on the edges of the City or outside of it could drive on smooth roads. He asserted that the only people who used roads on the outsides of the City were the people who lived there and their guests. He felt the streets that were closer to the core of the City were used by everyone. He suggested that the City allow the people who lived on the periphery of the City to maintain their own roads as private streets. He said if that was not an option, the City should tax each square foot of parking area and remove minimum parking standards. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, questioned whether there was truly a $170 million backlog. He wondered if a consultant was saying that because he or she wanted money and suggested that the City get a second opinion. He added that turning the cameras on for all City meetings would bring “light to all fiscal issues.” He thought the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had “all sorts of pork barrel spending that happens.” He felt that it was easy to turn the switch on for the cameras in the McNutt Room. He asserted that the reason the City had a backlog of street repairs was that it had “handed out premiums to developers.” He opined that selling off the parking garages would bring in income to counteract the backlog. He also thought the “nest egg” set aside for a future City Hall should be applied to the backlog. He said the taxpayers would then say “oh gee we’re not hiding money anymore” and they would be more likely to support a City Hall project in the future because they perceived that the government was “willing to be straight.” He added that if the backlog of projects was addressed as part of the regular City budget then the City would not “do the Olympics first and then the potholes.” He likened this to “eating dessert before having dinner.” Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said given the likelihood that the 2 cent gas tax would be referred to voters and then repealed if the council chose to keep it, the decision before the council was whether it would be better off spending the next several months engaged in another debate about a gas tax or using the time to make the case to the public for a bond measure to pay for street repairs. He felt to do so without the gas tax competing with the message to the public would benefit the potential bond measure. He related the Chamber’s recommendation which was to choose the latter course of action. He believed that the energy to be spent on the gas tax would be better served in working with others who were focusing on a comprehensive funding package in the Oregon Legislature to be approved in the 2009 session. He stated that the Eugene Chamber and “virtually every” leading business organization and trade association in the State of Oregon was asking the legislature to approve a package that would provide the funding that was needed for the operation and maintenance of the transportation infrastructure throughout the state, counties, and cities. He understood why the City would not want to part with the $1.7 million that the 2 cent gas tax generated per year. He felt that choosing to let the 2 cent tax sunset for the time being would allow the council and the Budget Committee to identify other sources of existing revenue or a portion of the capital reserves to offset the reduction “at least for a couple of years.” He also thought this would be looked upon favorably by the voters. Ron Tyree , 4000 Spring Boulevard, Ward 2, stated that he operated a local distributorship. He supported the upgrade needed in transportation and fuel taxes as a source of revenue for those repairs. He did not MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 9 Regular Meeting support taxes that were different throughout different jurisdictions. He averred that this caused confusion and an unfair competitive advantage or disadvantage for local gasoline marketers. He said the price discrepancy was also causing people to shift their fuel purchases to other areas. He related that the volume for the area had dropped from 80 million gallons per year to 70 million gallons per year, a 12 percent drop in volume. He attributed this drop solely to the gas tax. He reiterated that there was a consolidated group that was working at the legislative level to improve the state gasoline tax. He believed there was a “real chance” that this could be positive and successful. He declared that Eugene stood to gain $4 million per year if the tax, as proposed, went through. This was equivalent to a 6 cent per gallon tax. He thought a local tax would cause people to oppose any tax at all. He recommended allowing the 2 cent tax to sunset. He said if the statewide effort failed in 2009 he would help support a countywide gas tax. Paul Romain , 707 Southwest Washington Street, #927, representing the Oregon Petroleum Association (OPA), pledged that the OPA would work for a 12 to 14 cent increase in the state gasoline tax to be implemented immediately upon approval of the legislation. He said the part that would go to local government would be negotiated. He stressed the OPA opposition to local gas taxes. He implored the council to not “put [them] in the position of having to put the gas tax on the ballot.” John Anderson , 3340 King Edwards Court, Ward 4, voiced his opposition to the 2 cent gas tax. He felt the public had already voted on whether it wanted a gas tax by reducing the amount of fuel purchased locally. He said while people had not changed their driving habits, they had changed their purchasing habits. He averred that he would be the “first to step up” to help find a more local solution if the legislative session did not result in improved funding. Murphy McHugh , 1848 Russet Drive, echoed the comments of those in support of the sunset clause. He averred that the council had “penalized” him for being a gas station owner in the City of Eugene. He said if he sold gasoline five blocks away from his current location the fuel would be 5 cents cheaper. He related that his business was down and this had resulted in having to lay off people. He pointed out that one large chain store that sold gas would have people backed up eight cars deep just because the gas there was a few cents cheaper per gallon than in other places. He also felt that people in Florence who formerly went to Eugene to shop and purchase gas now stayed home because the gas was cheaper there. He noted that the State had decided to require that ethanol be combined with gasoline and this would result in a 30 percent reduction of emissions. He said this was good for the State. He believed that the State would choose to pursue a statewide remedy for transportation funding for the same reason. He underscored his belief that a local gas tax only hurt local dealers. Aaron Johnson , 2672 Canterbury Street, remarked that the City Council had an important decision before it: to vote with the electors or to vote against them with “blatant disregard to those who” elected them to office. He said it was up to the council to stand up and vote on behalf the people of the City. He averred that the people needed the council’s help to stop the “unfair tax burden.” He acknowledged that the roads were in a state of disrepair and that the 2 cent gas tax might sound like a good idea. He believed, however, that it would cause problems “on further issues.” He felt that a statewide fee would cause all Oregonians to shoulder the burden equally. He thought a local tax would continue to hurt the tax base. He questioned how the City could hope to repair the “decaying downtown” if people stopped coming to Eugene for the goods and services available there. He believed continuing “down this road” would hurt the people of Eugene. He predicted the coming recession would add to the strain. He related that he had 24 employees when the tax began and he now had 16. He added that several of the former employees were now on government MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 10 Regular Meeting assistance while they pursued other employment. He asserted that the City was forcing small station owners to sign long contracts with “big oil,” thus removing competition and causing prices to rise unchecked. He commented that one owner had closed his stations and “walked away.” th Howard Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, suggested an alternative political strategy: extend the tax for three more years in order to see if the State would pursue another mode of funding. He said in the mean time the gas tax would provide another $3 million more for the roads that need work. He invited anyone who drove elsewhere to buy cheaper gasoline to consider how much the drive to purchase it costs. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and opened the floor for councilor comments. Councilor Ortiz commented that she did not look at the City of Eugene selling less gasoline as necessarily a bad thing. She would surmise that people were living within their footprint. She felt that spending money locally in one’s own community was a good thing. She had supported the gas tax in the past because she heard the frustration of staff regarding not being able to address deteriorating roads and she heard feedback from constituents regarding the roads. Councilor Pryor thought the vote in November was something the council should pay attention to. He was uncertain as to how he would vote on it at this point. He recalled that he had debated the last gas tax with Mr. Romain and he believed Mr. Romain was sincere when he said he would work to pass a statewide gas tax. He indicated his willingness to collaborate on such a tax. He shared his concern that a decision not to sunset the 2 cent tax would result in the tax being placed on the ballot and voted down, just as the proposed gas tax that had been placed on the November ballot failed. He also found it difficult to walk away from $1.4 million, which he believed was desperately needed. He wanted to have community support for the larger elements of the transportation package the committee had worked on. He was concerned that the gas tax could negatively impact a bond measure. He agreed that street repairs should not be a “sidebar issue” when talking about the budget. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone who testified. She said she did not “read” the election as the voters rescinding the existing gas tax. She acknowledged that some would disagree with an action to extend the gas tax and that those people would have a right to place it on the ballot. She appreciated hearing that people were willing to “step up to the plate” to help at the state level “if [the council] did what they wanted.” She commented that the bond would not provide enough money to fund the backlog of street repairs. She asked if it would be possible to modify the ordinance so that the sunset date could be postponed until it was triggered by a remedy implemented by the State or County that would satisfy the City’s funding need. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the council could amend the ordinance but it could not make the sunset date contingent upon the action of another governmental body. He said the council could extend or repeal the sunset. He explained that it was a constitutional principle that a governmental body could not delegate its legislative authority to the legislature. Councilor Bettman requested ordinance language that would extend the tax by three years, indicating that this would be enough time to see if there were other remedies at the State and/or County level. Councilor Clark was pleased to hear Mr. Romain indicate he would be willing to work toward a statewide solution. He heard that the gas tax was not the right funding solution but that those in opposition to the tax MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 11 Regular Meeting were committed to finding the right one. He agreed that it was a larger issue than an individual revenue stream and that it was a larger core service issue. He believed that there was money in the City’s budget but it was not being spent as people expected it to be spent. He felt that people wanted the City to “deal with at least some of this problem” with the money that it had. He was somewhat concerned that repealing the sunset would cause there to be two political fights at the same time: one to keep the $1.4 million and the other to pass a bond which could potentially generate tens of millions of dollars. He was inclined to believe that it would be wiser for the City to seek short-term solutions with the money it already had. Councilor Zelenka stated that the gas tax could only be used on road maintenance by law. He felt that anyone who mistrusted the City government should “rest assured” that it would be illegal to spend it on other things. He acknowledged that the gas tax was tough for people on fixed and low incomes but this was not an increase, it was maintaining the status quo. In response to those who said the council should listen to the voters he wished to point out that the voters in Wards 1, 2, and 3 voted “overwhelmingly” in support of the gas tax increase. He thought it likely they would do the same in a vote to maintain the existing tax. He questioned whether the gas tax was truly the cause of all gas station owners’ woes. He noted that he sat on the Metropolitan Policy Committee and observed that Oregon Department of Transportation funds to every part of the state were being cut because the revenues from the gas tax had been declining. He attributed this to the increase in efficiency in cars. He stated that the 5 cent gas tax had already paid for $16.5 million in road maintenance over the past few years. He disputed any assertion that the backlog did not exist, adding that anyone who thought so should “just drive around.” He averred that the City had been “abandoned by the feds and abandoned by the State” and this was why the City had pursued a funding solution on the local level. He was skeptical that a “petroleum guy” would help promote a statewide increase in the gas tax. He asserted that half of the people who used the roads in the City of Eugene did not help to pay for the roads in property taxes. Councilor Poling believed the City needed a concentrated effort to get all of the cities on board in support of either a countywide gas tax or to submit something to the State. He believed that everyone needed to work in unison. He recalled that he and some other Budget Committee members had attempted to utilize some of the money that had been saved for the proposed City Hall complex to address the transportation infrastruc- ture issue. He related that it had not “gone over well.” He suggested that everyone who was opposed to a gas tax come and testify before the Budget Committee, asking that some of that money be utilized to make up for the money that the City would not be getting if the 2 cent tax was repealed. He noted that Councilor Taylor had often suggested the institution of a countywide vehicle registration fee. He thought the time might be right to look into that. Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the offers to help promote a funding solution at the legislative level. She reiterated her support for a vehicle registration fee. She agreed with Mr. Bonnett’s suggestion to extend the 2 cent tax for three more years. Councilor Bettman noted that the City Council was holding a public hearing on February 19 on the timing of ballots. She wished to alert those who might ultimately place the 2 cent tax on a ballot, should it not be sunsetted. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 12 Regular Meeting Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 13 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 28, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced changes to the sequence of items on the agenda and cancellation of the public forum during the regular meeting due to weather conditions. A. WORK SESSION: GloryBee Foods Enterprise Zone Boundary Amendment Request City Manager Angel Jones introduced Denny Braud, Planning and Development Department, to present the item. Mr. Braud said that GloryBee Foods, a local company located in Eugene for over 30 years, was requesting consideration of a boundary amendment to the West Eugene Enterprise Zone that would expand the boundary to include a recently acquired 60-acre parcel. He said the company had grown rapidly and its current operations were scattered among five different facilities. He said the proposed new facility would be a $15 million investment with over 100,000 square feet designed to be a very energy efficient and sustain- able building. He said GloryBee planned to build on 20 of the 60 acres and wanted to subdivide the remaining property in order to create a sustainable business park that would require tenants to meet specific sustainable building design standards. He said subdivision and sale of lots was critical to financing the cost of the new facility. Mr. Braud distributed an aerial photograph of the parcel showing its location immediately adjacent to the existing enterprise zone boundary. He said it was zoned I-2, Light and Medium Industrial and noted that the parcel was inside the previous enterprise zone boundary but was removed when the zone was reconfigured in 2005. He said the parcel was outside of the city limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB) and included in the Industrial Corridor Community Organization area, which through an agreement with the City allowed development of property within the corridor without annexation. He said the Lane County Board of Commissioners in September 2007 unanimously approved expansion of the enterprise zone boundary to include the parcel. He said the expansion would also need to be approved by the City Council as a joint sponsor of the enterprise zone in order to submit a request to the State for approval. He emphasized that the recommendation was to approve the boundary amendment and direct the City Manager to submit the amendment to the State only after GloryBee's project had progressed to a point of some certainty as reflected in approval for a subdivision of the property and submission of a building permit application for the new facility. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling asked why the request was just now coming before the council when it was approved by the County Board of Commissioners last September. Mr. Braud replied that the matter was not time sensitive, as construction was not anticipated until 2009. Mr. Poling asked for clarification of the consequences if a business failed to meet enterprise zone require- ments. Mr. Braud said there were two levels of requirements: the basic State criteria that every company had to meet and local public benefit criteria established by the City and County. He said failure to meet those requirements would result in repayment of part of the tax exemption through a public benefit contribution. Mr. Poling commended GloryBee as exactly the type of company the City wished to encourage. He said it was a locally owned and operated business that had expanded to the limits of its current capacity. He said the increase in enterprise zone acreage would be nominal and the City should support the request from a local, sustainable business that wanted to establish a business park to encourage other sustainable businesses. Ms. Bettman said whether or not GloryBee was a good company was not the question before the council. She saw the proposal as "green washing" a real estate transaction. She said GloryBee needed to increase its profit in order to make the expansion profitable and that was not what the enterprise zone was for. She said focusing the public subsidy on redevelopment of brownfield sites was the one community benefit built into the enterprise zone application and greenfield sites were specifically excluded. She questioned why development of industrial land would be subsidized if there was such a shortage of it. Ms. Bettman opined that GloryBee had purchased far more property than it needed and was banking on being able to bring it into the enterprise zone so its value would be increased when the subdivided portion was sold. She said there was no way for the council to encode or enforce the green standards, as the agreements would be between GloryBee and the businesses that purchased lots. She said when the taxes were foregone by the City every other taxpayer had to make up the shortfall. Mr. Pryor remarked that brownfields and greenfields were one dimension of the enterprise zone discussion; creation of jobs was another dimension. He said GloryBee had shined over the years in increasing employment and could take advantage of the enterprise zone to continue to add jobs to the community. He said GloryBee was exactly the type of company the enterprise zone was designed to benefit and most businesses required some type of assistance to expand. He felt the request was reasonable and consistent with the purpose of the enterprise zone. Mr. Clark stated that he would support the request, as it would increase family-wage jobs in Eugene, which was the purpose of the enterprise zone. He said this was a perfect opportunity for the council to demon- strate a commitment to grow locally owned companies and increase local family-wage jobs to support a more vibrant, sustainable local economy. He hoped the council would support keeping GloryBee in Eugene. He said a false scarcity of land had been created, which drove up prices and made transactions like GloryBee was proposing necessary in order for a project to be financially feasible. Ms. Taylor asked what wages GloryBee paid. Mr. Braud said he did not have a wage scale, but GloryBee provided employees with a full benefit package and the entry-level wage was above minimum wage. Ms. Taylor asked why the council needed to make a decision at this point if construction was not planned until 2009. Mr. Braud responded that the company was going through a rigorous planning and design MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 2 Work Session process that was expensive and wanted some certainty regarding availability of the enterprise zone given the overall cost of the project. Ms. Taylor asked if all the businesses in the sustainable business park would qualify for tax exemptions. Mr. Braud said they would qualify only if they met State and local enterprise zone criteria. He noted that any qualifying investments would come onto the tax rolls after three years. Ms. Taylor stated she was opposed to enterprise zones as there were other ways to help local businesses regardless of where they were located. She said this enterprise zone expansion could pave the way for future expansions and she would not support the request. Ms. Taylor asked if GloryBee was likely to go elsewhere if the request was not approved. Mr. Braud said he could not speculate on that, but the opportunity presented by the enterprise zone would help the company move the project forward and would raise the marketability of the subdivision. He said the tax exemption would also help maintain the sustainable components, which added cost to the project. Ms. Taylor asked if there were ways other than the enterprise zone that could be used to assist the company if it was to the City's advantage. Mr. Braud replied that there was a small business lending program, but the scope of the project was large enough that it was unlikely the program could meet all of the company's needs. Mr. Zelenka asked why the parcel was removed from the original enterprise zone. Mr. Braud said it was removed because of a desire to focus the boundary on redevelopment, infill development and brownfield development. Mr. Zelenka asked if the Industrial Corridor Community Organization area in which the property was located would exist forever. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said annexation had to occur within ten years of sewer connection or by 2010, whichever was earlier. He said all of the property that had been developed would come into the City on January 1, 2010. He said the corridor was governed by a complicated set of agreements dating back several years. Mr. Braud added that annexation on January 1, 2010, was not automatic and the City would need to take action. Mr. Zelenka commended GloryBee as exactly the type of business the City wished to attract. He asked if the amount of the tax exemption was known. Mr. Braud replied that the estimated amount of exemption was $450,000 over the three-year period, of which 40 percent would be City taxes if the property were annexed. Mr. Zelenka asked if there was any mechanism that required jobs to be retained throughout the exemption period. Mr. Braud said a business was disqualified if jobs were not maintained and would be required to repay the exemption. Mr. Zelenka said it was unclear to him that the project would not move forward without the property tax exemption. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve Resolution No. 4925 au- thorizing the City Manager to make application to the State of Oregon to amend the boundaries of the West Eugene Enterprise Zone. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to limit the boundary expansion to the twenty-acre site of the GloryBee expansion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she had questions about the extra territorial extension of urban services. She said that GloryBee was leveraging its good reputation in the community to buy additional property so that it could be included in the boundary expansion and result in a profit from the sale of property within the enterprise zone and that was not the purpose of the enterprise zone. She said the County foregoing taxes would impact the City because of the number of overlapping services. She did not think it was fair to consider a boundary expansion that would give the benefit of potential tax breaks to companies that were not yet identified. She said the creation of ten jobs was a very low threshold for qualifying a business. The motion to amend failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mr. Zelenka said he would not support the request to amend the boundary because it was not clear to him that the project would not happen anyway. He questioned whether the council should be making companies more profitable and said the threshold for providing an exemption should be very high. He said a business should have to make the case that without the incentive a development would not occur. He thought there should be incentives for sustainable development such as proposed by GloryBee. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, called for the question. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz arrived at 6 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: Tax Levy for Funding of Pavement Capital Preservation Projects Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance Division, stated that materials in the agenda packet explained the types of expenditures proposed to be made from bond proceeds and provided a list of high profile street repair projects. She referred to a map showing the location of projects, which were distributed throughout the City primarily on major arterials and collectors. She said those projects comprised about one-third of the proposed bond spending and the remainder would be used for additional street repair projects defined in the ballot measure language and determined by the City's pavement management system, including $350,000 annually for off-street bike and pedestrian paths. Ms. Cutsogeorge distributed and reviewed a summary of results from a January 2008 poll of citizens indicating a majority was willing to pay additional property taxes for street repair. She said the poll also identified respondents' street repair priorities. She said the recommended motion directed the City Manager to bring back a resolution placing an $81 million bond measure on the May 2008 ballot with the list of high profile projects included in the resolution. Ms. Bettman asked what percentage of the $81 million was not construction costs. Kurt Corey, Public Works, replied that non-construction expenses included project management, engineering and oversight, which typically ranged from 10 to 20 percent of a project's costs. Ms. Bettman said she was unwilling to support the recommendation as it allowed too much discretion on the part of staff. She understood that the bond measure would be a package of projects on which the funds would be spent. She said the list of priority projects did not appeal to her as it omitted several sections of heavily traveled road in her ward, but even if those were on the list they could be supplanted by other MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 4 Work Session projects that staff deemed a higher priority. She objected to combining street repair funds from the bond measure with funds for new construction as that would add bond funds to a capacity enhancing project without a clear dividing line. She said inclusion in the resolution of five principle areas of restriction on the use of bond proceeds meant there were other non-principle areas that were not listed. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Corey said the list of priority projects presented to the council represented about one-third of the street repair projects. He said the pavement preservation program for each construction season derived projects from the pavement management system, which identified projects before they reached the point where reconstruction became necessary. He said that system considered several factors that guided developing a project list. He said the priority projects list represented a broad cross-section of the City and matched with feedback from citizen polling about street repair priorities. Mr. Pryor said he trusted the Public Works Department and traffic engineers to identify the streets most in need of preservation. He agreed it was important to be clear with the public about how the bond proceeds would be used on projects. He said he was considering changing the election date from May to November when he placed the motion on the floor and asked for feedback from councilors. Mr. Zelenka said the intent was to address the $170 million backlog of street repairs that was growing daily. He said it was unlikely that State or federal funds would be available for projects, which was why the council subcommittee had recommended a funding package that included several funding components. He agreed that there should be a list of projects for which bond proceeds would be used and it was reasonable to begin with a short-term list of projects for the next two or three years, as it was difficult to predict what projects would be priorities over the next ten years. He said the criterion was to prevent streets from moving into the reconstruction category, which was five times as expensive. He did not want to see the funds used for new system capacity increases when the City could not afford to maintain the ones it had. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring a resolution forward placing an $81 million General Obligation bond to be used for preservation only, no system capacity enhancements, on the November 2008 ballot. Mr. Clark concurred with placing the bond on the November ballot. He felt that fixing the problem of street repairs was one of the council's most important tasks. He said in the spirit of compromise he was willing to consider a garbage hauler surcharge as part of the solution to the problem. Mr. Poling agreed with waiting until the November election as it would allow the council additional time to build trust and confidence with the community. He said it would also allow the council to consider during the budget process whether there were existing funds that could be directed toward street repair. He stressed a focus on street repair and was not willing to support any initiative that included increasing capacity. Ms. Taylor agreed with limiting use of funds to street repairs, but felt the bond should be on the ballot in May. Ms. Ortiz agreed with limiting use of funds to street repairs and placing the bond on the November ballot. Mayor Piercy felt the issue was important enough to work on further to develop a list of projects that could be agreed upon and to complete the budget process before an election. She said the City was constantly working within its capacity to repair streets but was hampered by limited resources. She supported waiting until November. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the motion unless there was a specific project list and the bond was on the May ballot. She did not believe that 10 to 20 percent of the funds were required for project planning and engineering since the problem was well defined. She reiterated her objection to allowing staff discretion regarding the project list and to using the funds in a project that also included capacity enhancing funds. She characterized the garbage hauler surcharge as a pass-through to residents, who would be paying for street preservation through several different mechanisms. Mr. Zelenka said he was willing to accept Ms. Bettman's request for a complete project list as a friendly amendment. Ms. Ortiz accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Zelenka clarified that the bike and pedestrian path language was still included in his motion. He said the garbage hauler fee and gas tax were part of the transportation funding package because there was a direct connection between the damage to streets and who paid for it. He said more time was required to better understand and communicate information about the need for the bond to the public, develop a project list and go through the budget process. Mr. Clark noted that streets in the vicinity of City Hall were not on the project list. Mr. Poling thought it was appropriate to retain some flexibility in the project list and use some funds for engineering because over time conditions changed and a road that might currently be at the top of the list could be surpassed by one that was deteriorating more rapidly. He did not want to be handcuffed by a list of projects that could not be reevaluated on a regular basis and revised as necessary. Ms. Solomon agreed there should be some flexibility in the project list as councilors were not traffic engineers and could not predict what projects would be priorities over the life of the bond. She preferred to see a project list for at least two-thirds of the bond proceeds. She asked if that was Mr. Zelenka’s intent. Mr. Zelenka explained that the intent of his motion was to develop a full list for the $81 million in bond proceeds, but also allow flexibility by including a process whereby the list could be adjusted. He agreed with Mr. Poling that ten years was a long time and priorities could change during that period. Mr. Pryor said the capital improvement program (CIP) process could provide the flexibility to develop a project list. He stressed that the subject under discussion was not a garbage hauler fee; more information was required before that fee came before the council again. He would support the motion. Ms. Bettman stated she preferred to commit to a specific list and reserve a small amount of discretionary funding for emergent issues. She objected to publishing a list that could be changed in the future. Mr. Zelenka clarified that his motion was intended to direct the City Manager to develop a resolution for a bond measure that identified the time, the size and the content and there would be an opportunity to debate that, including details of the project list, when the resolution was presented to the council. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer's Business License Tax and Amendment Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 Mr. Corey stated that the City’s gas tax was presently set at five cents per gallon, two cents of which would sunset on February 29, 2008. He said the Oregon Petroleum Association (OPA) had pledged at the January MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 6 Work Session 14, 2008, public hearing to work toward a statewide gas tax if the two-cent portion of the City’s tax was allowed to sunset. He said in the spirit of cooperation, staff was recommending extending the sunset period by three years instead of repealing it. He said that would allow time for the legislature to address transpor- tation funding during the 2009 session. He said allowing the two cents to sunset at the end of February would create an additional $1.4 million annual deficit in the street repair budget. Ms. Taylor stated she would support a three-year extension of the sunset provision. Mr. Zelenka expressed concern about testimony that suggested the decrease in gasoline sales was associated with the two-cent tax. He felt that was unlikely as the entire State had experienced a reduction in gasoline consumption. He said the OPA was vague about its commitment to work on the concept of transportation legislation in 2009. He preferred to keep the tax in place until that funding materialized. He supported extension of the sunset provision. Ms. Bettman supported removing the sunset provision altogether as she was not optimistic that the legislature would provide sufficient funds for road repairs because they would not be able to resist the temptation to dedicate a large portion of that to modernization. She supported the three-year extension as a compromise. Mr. Clark said he understood that the volume of gasoline sales had decreased in Eugene but been flat or increased in the rest of Lane County during the past two years, which related directly to price competition. He was in general agreement that fuel taxes were a good idea because they were closer to being a user fee. He was unhappy with the council’s decision not to place the issue before voters when gas dealers had gathered enough signatures to place both the three-cent and the two-cent tax on the ballot. In the spirit of compromise he was willing to extend the sunset, although he preferred extending it only until the end of July 2009. He hoped the council could work toward a combined solution to transportation system funding, including the commitment of some General Fund moneys. Mr. Pryor remarked that the dilemma was whether to sunset the tax as an incentive to work with the legislature or retain the tax as an incentive and then rescind it if State funding became available. He was willing to extend the sunset to avoid adding $1.4 million to the annual deficit and would work with OPA and the legislature to pass a State gas tax. He said it should be made clear that the extension was only until there was a legislative solution. Mr. Poling also felt that lower gas sales were the result of competition. He said the council had made a commitment to the public to sunset the two-cent tax and should honor that agreement. Mayor Piercy recollected that the commitment was to rescind the two-cent increase when the problem was solved and that had not yet happened. She noted that the council could not commit future council's to take action. She hoped that a State solution would be beneficial for Eugene. Ms. Ortiz remarked that a transportation funding bill was passed by the Washington State legislature and then referred to the voters by unhappy taxpayers, so a State solution was not guaranteed. She said a sunset provision required the council to discuss and reconfirm a tax. She applauded the citizens of Eugene because using less gas meant people were changing their driving behavior and operating more fuel-efficient cars, not going out of the area to buy fuel. She pointed out that the gas tax could be rescinded at any time the council wished and if other funding became available she would support that. She was in favor of the second option. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to go with Option 2, an ordinance concerning motor vehicle fuel dealer's business license tax as shown in Attachment A. Mr. Lidz read the action section of the ordinance: Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 (the sunset provision) adopted by the City Council on January 24, 2005, is hereby amended to read: "Unless otherwise extended by the City Council, the amendment to Subsection (b) of Section 3.467 shall sunset on February 28, 2011, and the tax will revert to three cents per gallon." Mr. Zelenka said he was willing to compromise on a three-year extension, but the sunset should be linked to solving the problem. He clarified that the council's action did not increase the tax; it maintained the status quo. He stressed that if the sunset extension was placed on the ballot and defeated, that would mean a reduction in the pothole fund and there would be consequences in terms of worsening street conditions. He said that the Oregon Department of Transportation indicated that gas tax revenues were declining because people were driving hybrid vehicles, driving smarter and using less gas and as Ms. Ortiz pointed out, that trend was reflected locally. He said the extension would provide time for the legislature to act and for the council to work on other funding options discussed by the subcommittee. Mr. Clark said he would have a difficult time supporting the motion because voters had earned the right to vote on the matter. Mr. Poling said that Ms. Ortiz had persuaded him to support the motion. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Clark voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session and called the council into executive session at 7 p.m. C. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 199.660(2)(e), the City Council met in executive session. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 28, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that due to weather conditions the sequence of items on the agenda had been revised. She asked Councilor Pryor to put the motion from the executive session on the floor. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Man- ager to proceed with direction from the City Council to accept the option as pre- sented. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Charles Wiper, Inc. Measure 37 Claim (M37 06-4) City Manager Angel Jones noted that staff would be responding to all questions in writing. She introduced Gabe Flock, Planning and Development Department, to provide the staff report. Mr. Flock said the public hearing on the Charles Wiper Measure 37 claim and action on February 11, 2008, were scheduled to comply with an order of the Lane County Circuit Court. He said the City believes that the recent passage of Measure 49 rendered the claimant’s lawsuit moot. Mr. Flock reviewed the history of the claim as set forth in the City Manager's report and recommendation. He said that the new State law (Measure 49) appeared to significantly limit the amount of development potential but the manager's recommendation was based on Measure 37 as it was in effect in May of last year. He said the claim demanded $3.5 million in compensation based on alleged reduction in the fair market value of the property due to various City regulations and in the alternative requested waiver of restrictive land use regulations dating back to original ownership of the property in 1929. He said staff had received numerous letters in support of the manager's recommendation to deny the claim and due to the short agenda and weather concerns the City would accept testimony until 5 p.m. on January 29, 2008. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. Michael M. Reeder, 800 Willamette Street, Suite 800, Eugene, attorney for the claimant, said that packets of materials with a January 28, 2008, cover letter had been hand delivered for the record and to insure inclusion of the appraisal in the original Measure 37 claim. He stated he was unaware of any evidence in the record that rebutted the appraisal and no legal authority was cited to support the conclusion that the claim was invalid. Referring to one of the five requirements for a Measure 37 claim, he said the report MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting discussed the definition of a land use regulation and made a distinction without a difference. He said the recommendation indicated that to the extent that there were land use regulations identified which were not regulations as defined by Measure 37, the claim was invalid. He said Eugene Code Chapter 9 was a land use regulation for purposes of ORS 197.352 and the City had enforced land use regulations. He said the waiver of certain land use regulations would increase the fair market value of the property and the claim was therefore valid. Allison Hassler, 4183 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, said her property was adjacent to the Rest Haven property at issue in the claim. She supported the City Manager's recommendation. She said from a legal perspective the restriction the claimant asserted diminished his property value was not a land use regulation under Measure 37; it was a voluntary dedication to cemetery use in 1929. She was concerned about the potential affects on the neighborhood if the claim was approved. She said the neighborhood was stable with many long-term residents. She said she paid a premium price for her property based on assurance that the subject property was dedicated to cemetery use. She also relied on that dedication when she buried her mother there. She was also concerned for the serenity of the cemetery and trusted that the council would consider the interests of all the citizens of Eugene and accept the manager's recommendation. Douglas White, 391 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, said he had previously submitted two letters for the record. He said the claimant had not identified specific provisions within the Eugene Code, plans or conditional use permit that gave rise to the claim. He wondered how the intended development would encroach upon the memories of people in the neighborhood who had buried friends and relatives in the cemetery. He said he also had purchased his property based on assurance that the property would remain a cemetery and supported the manager's recommendation. Thomas L. W. Roe, 4207 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, spoke in support of the City Manager's recommenda- tion with respect to the Wiper Measure 37 claim. He said he had lived on Brae Burn Drive since 1969 and other than expressing concern about lack of good stewardship, the undeveloped cemetery had been a good neighbor. He said that changed in 2002 when a majority of property owners bordering the cemetery opposed Mr. Wipers' application for a controlled-income and rental housing project on cemetery property. He said the application was denied and the project terminated. He said the neighbors were now involved in opposing the Measure 37 claim and strongly supported the Planning Commission and City Manager's recommenda- tions for denial. John Sihler, 4235 Brae Burn Drive, Eugene, pointed out the many letters from neighbors describing in detail how the subject property owners had promised several years ago that the cemetery would remain forever with a 75-foot buffer around it if the neighbors would not oppose logging on the site. He said there were many reasons to deny the claim, including the fact that the original dedication as a cemetery in 1929 was voluntary for a business purpose, not imposed. He said the appraisal ignored the fact that the present value of the cemetery was as a business. He emphasized that a neighborhood community was based on mutual respect and trust. Aaron Noteboom, 800 Willamette Street, Suite 800, Eugene, representing the claimant, disputed the suggestion that the Measure 37 claim was not valid because it did not cite specific land use regulations and how each regulation reduced the fair market value. He said that was not a requirement of Measure 37 and the City had set a precedent on a previous waiver granted to Lane Plywood. He said it was true the property was dedicated as a cemetery in 1929, but the claimant had the right to have that dedication removed by ORS 97.440. He said the portion of the property from which the dedication would be removed had not been used for the interment of human remains. He asserted that the appraisal was done by qualified appraisers who had been used by the City in the past, although the City could hire its own appraiser to rebut the informa- MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting tion. He said the claimant had demonstrated that restrictions on use of the property had resulted in reduction of the fair market value. Mayor Piercy closed the hearing and thanked those who spoke. Councilor Poling thanked those who had ventured out in inclement weather. Councilor Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to leave the record open until 5 p.m. on February 4, 2008. The motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Clark asked for clarification about the payment of premium prices for property in the neighbor- hood. He asked how the property was zoned and designated currently. Mr. Flock said the property was designated for parks and open space use with roughly one-third zoned Public Land and two-third zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Councilor Bettman questioned the idea that the entire code provided a land use regulation instead of specifying specific regulations and identifying those that affected the property's value. She said her father was buried in the cemetery and wondered what kind of commitment the cemetery had made to people who had buried their loved ones there. She asked if there was a contractual agreement that provided some level of certainty to those people. Councilor Taylor commented that people paid more for property when there was nearby open space and the nature of adjoining properties. She said people who had moved there had a right to expect the neighborhood to remain unchanged and people should be able to bury loved ones with the certainty the cemetery would remain. She regretted that the record would remain open for an additional period of time. 2. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUN- CIL AND CITY MANAGER Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Man- ager to refrain from making any commitment that would jeopardize the City's abil- ity to fund acquisition of the Beverly and Green properties. Mr. Clark said he understood the intent of the motion, but was concerned that actions currently under way might jeopardize funding for acquisition of the parcels in question. He did not want to stop work currently in progress, particularly pertaining to a Santa Clara community park, and would not support the motion. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to table the motion. The motion passed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the November 21, 2007, Work Session; December 3, 2007, Work Session; and December 12, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of the City Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Operating Agreements MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting D. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of June 15, 2007, and December 12, 2007 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted that she had submitted electronic corrections to the minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall February 11, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mike Clark. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted that City Councilor Mike Clark was ill and could not be present. Mayor Piercy said the motion that Ms. Taylor intended to offer in regard to the Bureau of Land Manage- ment’s Western Oregon Plan Revision would not be considered until the 7:30 p.m. regular meeting. Mayor Piercy commended the recent Project Homeless Connect event, noting the many people who were provided with services at the event and the many volunteers who assisted them. Mayor Piercy noted the upcoming “How to Start a Small Business” workshop at the Eugene Library on February 16 at 3 p.m. Mayor Piercy noted a meeting occurring the next day at 6 p.m. at Springcreek Elementary School to discuss what residents wanted at the new Ferndale Park. Mayor Piercy reported that the City’s Neighborhood Program Office held an open house on February 6 to commemorate the opening of its new offices at the Atrium Building and it was a good event. Mayor Piercy noted the recent opening of the Green Store, a new sustainable business. Mayor Piercy noted the recent River Road Community Organization celebration, held over the past weekend, and encouraged residents to attend the upcoming Asian Festival. Mayor Piercy called the council’s attention to a letter from Representative Peter DeFazio commending the City on its recent Tree City USA award. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor also commended Project Homeless Connect, saying the event was even better than the year before. He also noted the many participants and volunteers. Mr. Poling said he and Mr. Clark attended the recent Fire and EMS Awards Ceremony and there were a number of promotions and service awards presented, as well as awards to citizens in recognition of their contributions to public safety. He commended the event. Mr. Poling noted the recent snow storm experienced by the community and thanked the Public Works Department for keeping city streets cleared. Ms. Taylor also enjoyed the recent Neighborhood Program open house event and was happy to see Public Service Officer Michelle Mortensen had a desk there. Ms. Taylor noted compliments she heard from residents about Neighborhood Program staff at the recent River Road Community Organization celebration. Ms. Taylor said she had attended the Basic Rights Celebration for domestic partnerships and it was a very happy occasion. Ms. Taylor said she heard from many constituents who were interested in seeing a park across from the library and suggested that be included in a Request for Proposals. She said people also expressed surprise that Civic Stadium was proposed for a hospital site, and suggested the council should do what it could to preserve the site. Mr. Zelenka also commended the Project Homeless Connect event. He had served at the event as a greeter and talked to many “every day” folks about their situations, and found they needed a lift up, which was what the event was all about. He said the event was well-organized and he commended Richie Weinman of Planning and Development Department and Pearl Wolfe of the Human Services Commission for their work in putting on the event. Mr. Zelenka spoke of the high level of interest in the neighborhoods near the University of Oregon as it embarked on its basketball arena project and reported the University was putting together a committee of residents to advise it on issues such as parking and noise that were related to the arena. Mr. Zelenka called the council’s attention to the Alder Commons project, a seven-story multi-family development being constructed on the edge of an established neighborhood in southeast Eugene. He said neighboring residents were concerned about the scale and compatibility of the project with the neighborhood, and he suggested the council should discuss the project. Mr. Zelenka noted an upcoming youth job faire occurring the next day at the Lane County Fairgrounds, and said a similar job faire for adults was scheduled for March 13. Mr. Zelenka was encouraged to hear about the Neighborhood Program open house and regretted he was unable to attend. Mr. Zelenka said he was sorry to hear about the arrangement reached between the Eugene Emeralds and the university in regard to the Ems’ use of the university’s new baseball stadium. He anticipated a council work session on the topic. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz also commended the recent Project Homeless Connect event and said she felt very good about volunteering for the event. She had worked with some women who did not generally volunteer for such projects, and that was good to see. She thought the event connected community members together. She said no resident was far away from being homeless. Ms. Ortiz also attended the River Road Community Organization celebration and said it was well-organized, with many interesting presentations. She commended the event organizers and said she had been able to meet some of the organization’s new leadership. Ms. Ortiz found the new Neighborhood Program office to be very welcoming, which she found important. Ms. Bettman also commended Project Homeless Connect and said it was an incredible event. She had also volunteered and had a chance to meet a lot of people and see the event from many points of view. She commended the staff and service providers and noted the many private businesses that donated services and staff time. She asked if the council would be able to connect the event to its homelessness goal if staff could assess the City’s capacity to provide more services to the homeless, such as offering the event twice yearly. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said the council would receive a report on the event and what it would take to continue it into the future. She acknowledged the effort put forth by Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Weinman and noted the County’s uncertain financial outlook, which could have an impact on the event in the future. Speaking to Ms. Taylor’s comments regarding the proposed hospital sites, City Manager pro tem Jones said the list of sites was a rough list based on acreage requirements and many of the sites listed would not work for the hospital and were no longer on the list. City Manager pro tem Jones noted the work session scheduled on Civic Stadium on April 28. B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Update Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). City Manager pro tem Jones introduced the topic, noting it was a work session on next steps in the West Broadway area. Denny Braud, Susan Muir, and Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Depart- ment and Sue Cutsogeorge of the Central Services Department were present for the item. Mr. Braud presented a PowerPoint presentation updating the council on the progress of the West Broadway project. He focused on the purchase options for the West Broadway properties and strategies for moving forward. Ms. Solomon arrived during the presentation. Mayor Piercy solicited council questions and comments. Ms. Taylor was happy about the Beam project and hoped Oregon Research Institute (ORI) could be secured as a tenant for the Centre Court building. Ms. Taylor believed most of the purchase options should be dropped, particularly those on properties containing existing businesses. She asked if the owner of the Tango Center had expressed interest in the option for that building. Mr. Braud said yes. Ms. Taylor asked if the City was responding to that interest. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Braud said staff was recommending that the City solicit interest from all parties, including the Tango Center. Ms. Taylor pointed out the center was currently using the property and she thought it would be good if it stayed in place. She did not support soliciting proposals that might displace current businesses. Ms. Taylor asked why the City was still talking to Scan Design. Mr. Braud said the URA directed staff to extend the option; however, that option had expired. Ms. Taylor was glad and hoped the City did what it could to keep the store downtown. Mayor Piercy understood that Scan Design planned to move to Oakway Mall. Mr. Braud said the store was looking at several different options. Mayor Piercy said she spoke to several people after they saw the architect’s renderings of the project, and they had reacted very positively. Ms. Bettman did not think the City should interfere with the free market unless there was a demonstrable public benefit or unless it could fix a problem. She asked where the public benefit existed in transferring the options. Mr. Braud suggested it was derived in the ultimate use of the properties; the concept was to assign the options to someone capable of carrying out a project and willing to make a reasonable offer for the assignment. Ms. Bettman asked if staff contemplated a Request for Proposals (RFP) approach when it mentioned disposing of the property in an “auction like” manner. She said the council had no analysis of what represented a reasonable return. Mr. Braud indicated there was no time for a formal RFP because several of the options would expire soon. City Manager pro tem Jones said staff recognized the investment the City made and hoped to recoup some of that, as well as not lose the benefit of having acquired the properties. She said the City would make the options available and evaluate offers based on their return to the City. Ms. Bettman asked what happened if the offers did not provide a return to the City; would the options be allowed to expire? City Manager pro tem Jones said yes. Ms. Bettman suggested the process could be constrained to produce more benefit, such as selling the properties to the tenants who occupied them now. Her concern was that if the City sold the options to the highest bidder without any constraints, a buyer could tear a building down and leave a pit in its place, or wait for the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee to push for a code change that allowed for profitable surface parking. She could not support those scenarios, and anticipated she would amend the motion proposed by staff so the options were offered first to the tenants, and the purchase contracts did not allow for building demolition or surface parking. She asked City Attorney Glenn Klein for assistance in crafting a motion. Ms. Bettman asked how the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant would be used. Mr. Braud said staff would propose a financial plan in advance of a council work session. The City was interested in using the BEDI grant and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 108 moneys, and the logical use was for acquisition of the properties and construction assistance. Mr. Poling recalled the council’s receipt of a letter from Bradford’s and said that Mr. Clark, who was not able to attend the meeting, was interested in holding the company harmless due to its longevity in downtown. He asked for more information. Mr. Braud said the company was concerned about its favorable lease from Diamond Parking and it would like to remain in its current location for a while to receive the benefit of the lease rate; the company also made some building improvements it had to pay for and that it did not want to walk away from. The company also wanted to retain its current existing surface parking, although most of MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 4 Work Session the company’s business was off-site home installations. He was not sure surface parking was critical to the business’ survival at that location. Mr. Poling agreed with City Manager pro tem Jones that the public benefit of offering the purchase offers would be recovering the City’s investment, and a favorable return would be recovering all of it. He said it appeared that everyone was waiting for the details of the Beam proposal so he thought making the purchase options available was a good idea and liked the idea of offering them to the tenants first, followed by a general offering. He thought there was momentum for development downtown, as illustrated by the discussions that occurred during the ballot measure campaign. Mr. Poling recalled his interest in including the Roberts/Taco Time building in the initial West Broadway development proposal but believed if the City offered the options it would have essentially the same effect. th Mr. Zelenka determined from Mr. Braud that the Bradford’s building was not included in the 10 Avenue and Charnelton RFP. Mr. Braud said the City had referenced its control of the surface parking lot in the RFP but did not market the Bradford’s building as part of the RFP. The goal was to offer a complete half- th block. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was possible to include parking for the business in the 10 and Charnelton RFP to allow it to maintain the limited amount of parking it had. Mr. Braud said the City did not know the nature of the parking need for what would be constructed; he pointed out that it could be underground. Mr. Zelenka suggested that staff, through the RFP, could ask respondents to discuss how they would replace Bradford’s parking. Mr. Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Braud that all the options were voluntarily negotiated with the owners, who agreed to the prices paid. Mr. Zelenka said the City had $344,000 invested in the purchase options, and if the City could recover all or most of that money or even make money, it would be great. He asked City Attorney Klein to speak to the restrictions Ms. Bettman mentioned. City Attorney Klein thought the City could accomplish those things legally through a separate agreement that followed the property, but he would have to check with his firm’s real estate expert. He said such an agreement would have to be carefully crafted, and if the council gave him direction, he would attempt to do so. Mr. Zelenka said demolition of the building with the goal of immediate redevelopment would be acceptable, but he did not want to see an empty site. He thought the action contemplated by the council was in keeping with the message he received from the public’s vote in regard to a reduced government role in downtown development. Mr. Zelenka asked Beam’s progress in reassessing the Center Court Building. Mr. Braud said the company was moving forward with the project and was talking to potential tenants. Engineers had gone over the space but he had heard nothing negative as a result of those studies. Everything he had heard was encouraging. Ms. Solomon thought restricting people in what they could do was a “real low vision” approach. Ms. Solomon asked how dependent Beam was on ORI for the project. Mr. Braud said ORI was looking at other sites and had not made a decision. Beam and City staff had been encouraged by ORI’s interest in the project and was working to facilitate it. Beam was also talking to other potential anchor tenants. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, that the Washburne Building was also part of the project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon said she would like to get rid of as many purchase options as possible to save the City money. Ms. Solomon said she had not seen an analysis of the proposed land exchange with Diamond Parking. She said that currently the City-owned parking lot was generating revenues for the City and now it would not. Mr. Braud said the primary obstacle in negotiating with Diamond Parking was that it was not interested in selling any of its property and in fact had the reputation of never disposing of property, but the company was willing to entertain an exchange of land. Diamond had expressed a high level of interest in the City- owned parking lot because the company was in the parking business. He acknowledged the parking lot did well. He clarified that the cash and property exchange were based on the same type of price the City offered for the other buildings on the block. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of assigning the purchase options as described and he liked the idea of placing some conditions on the sale of the options, though not many. He wanted to maintain a “light touch” that kept the momentum going in the downtown area. He regretted Diamond Parking was not willing to sell its property. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the agency director to solicit offers from parties interested in an assignment of the purchase options not being exercised by the URA. th Ms. Bettman said that Mr. Braud compared the property at 12 Avenue and Oak Street with the other properties, even though that property was not an income-producing property. The City had no appraisal on it and it was not valued as income-producing. Mr. Braud clarified that that the Diamond and Bradford properties were both income-producing properties. He said that staff had talked to appraisers to establish the value of both of the properties, and because the properties were not equivalent in value, Diamond would also receive a cash payment. Ms. Bettman said if the City did not assign the options, it was not as though the properties could not be purchased on the private market. The issue was how deeply the City Council wanted the City involved in the private market. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment that stated the first right of refusal was to existing tenants, who could assume the existing options for the option cost. She clarified that the City would not attempt to make money off those tenants; even if they were not the highest bidders, they would be allowed to assume the existing option at the option cost. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman asked City Attorney Klein about including a provision in the motion that prohibited demolish- ing properties without redevelopment within a specific time frame. There would also have to be a remedy, such as the property reverting back to the City. Those constraints would apply to existing tenants as well as other parties. In addition, the properties involved could not be used for surface parking. Mr. Pryor was willing to accept those points for inclusion in the motion but wanted more certainty about the time frame involved for demolishing and rebuilding. Ms. Bettman agreed. City Attorney Klein pointed out the properties would revert back to the property owners, not to the City, as the City held only the options. City Attorney Klein indicated his office would prepare text for the council to consider on February 13. Ms. Bettman said a council priority was having more people downtown, which meant housing. She asked if there was a way to create a weighted formula for awarding the purchase options that would favor housing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 6 Work Session She said she would be willing to transfer the options at no cost if the result was a predominance of housing in a development. Mayor Piercy summarized the motion on the floor as amended through the discussion, saying the council had agreed to direct the agency director to come back with a proposal for the solicitation of offers. Ms. Bettman said another downside to the approach being proposed was that the City could be in the position that individuals already holding large blocks of property downtown could buy the options and further consolidate their holdings and then do nothing with their properties. She determined from Mr. Braud that the Connor-Wooley partnership had not contacted the City about the purchase options. She asked how the City could avoid the risk of further consolidation. City Manager pro tem Jones suggested there was nothing to preclude that from happening now because once the options expired, Connor-Wooley could readily purchase them from their owners. Ms. Bettman asked City Attorney Klein to return with a motion that stated the intent of the council was not to allow further consolidation of properties. City Attorney Klein said he would return with either the text requested or a legal opinion. Ms. Bettman determined that Mr. Pryor declined to accept an amendment related to consolidation of properties as a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor. Ms. Bettman moved that the assignment of the options be carried out in such a way as to avoid consolidation of properties to more than 25 percent of the footprint in a single owner- ship. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman supported the motion on the floor in order to see what staff developed. However, that did not guarantee her future support. Mr. Zelenka asked if the City had the discretion to assign the purchase options. City Manager pro tem Jones said yes. She believed that at a minimum, the City could turn down an offer. Ms. Taylor was not willing to do anything to force the business owners to give up their businesses. She thought some of the prices for the properties the City held options on were outrageous and suggested the current tenants would not be able to afford to buy them at those prices. City Attorney Klein restated the motion: To direct the agency director to bring back to the URA as soon as possible a methodology for soliciting offers from parties interested in assignment of the purchase options not be- ing exercised by the URA with the first right to acquire the option to the tenant for the value that the URA paid for the option, and if the tenant was not interested, to solicit of- fers from others with some kind of provision that provides for a reasonable time frame for redevelopment after any demolition, with serious consequences if that redevelopment does not occur. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the URA and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to convey owner- ship of the City-owned parking lot identified in Attachment C to Diamond Parking as par- tial compensation for the URA’s acquisition of the property identified as Property #4 in At- tachment A. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Braud described the appraisal methodology and clarified that the City did not actually commission a formal appraisal for the property. Ms. Solomon asked why a formal appraisal of Property #4 was not done. Mr. Braud said the City did formal appraisals on all properties in the redevelopment area and had information on downtown property land values and assumed the two lots were fairly equivalent in value. He had also talked to some real estate professionals about those values. He acknowledged the company was not easy to deal with and the transaction might not be a real market value transaction. Ms. Solomon was not comfortable with the lack of an appraisal and could not support the transaction as proposed. Speaking to Ms. Solomon’s remarks, Ms. Bettman pointed out the URA spending limit expansion and entire West Broadway development proposal were based on purchase options that were acquired without formal appraisals. That entire process occurred without appraisals. If the City “stopped the clock now” to get an appraisal, it would lose the property. The motion passed unanimously, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. C. WORK SESSION: City of Eugene Elections Code Revision City Recorder Mary Feldman was present for the item. She distributed a matrix noting the change being proposed to the Elections Code, the nature of the change, and the reason for the change. She said the changes were intended to clarify confusing provisions, correct grammatical errors, and reorder the code sections to chronologically reflect the process people were expected to pursue. She identified Section 2.977, Section 2.980, Section 2.981, Section 2.993, and Section 2.994 as sections the council might wish to discuss further for their policy implications. Ms. Feldman said nothing in the changes being proposed would affect the May 2008 election or the voters’ pamphlet for that election. Mayor Piercy solicited questions. Ms. Bettman suggested the code lacked definitions as it referred to “election” without being specific as to whether the election in question was a “special,” “primary” or “general” election. That either meant any election or that the council could choose any date and hold an election. In addition, on page 8 of the draft ordinance, where it spoke to the need for the City Recorder to determine “immediately” whether the submitted petition was in proper form, “immediately” was not defined. Ms. Feldman said that usually occurred at the time of petition submission, when she met with the petitioners personally. She would make that clear. Speaking to the lack of a definition for “special” elections, etc., Ms. Feldman noted the four election dates provided by State law. Any election held on one of those dates in any year other than the regularly MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 8 Work Session scheduled general or primary election year was considered a “special” election. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said the reference to “special” election was deleted because staff considered it confusing. Ms. Bettman said that people think in terms of primary elections, or special elections, and suggested that “election” could be defined as discussed by Ms. Feldman. Speaking to Section 2.977, Ms. Bettman said the downside of the provision was that there was more expense in going to Circuit Court for the public if a resident disagreed with a ballot title. The upside was that the court was a more objective forum for argument. City Attorney Lidz clarified that individuals could represent themselves on such a matter before a Circuit Court judge. Referring to Section 2.979(2), Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Feldman that State law did not provide for an appeal process for a statistical signature sampling method. City Attorney Lidz clarified that there was a State requirement that a second sampling would be done to confirm the results of the first sampling. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about Section 2.981, Ms. Feldman clarified that the council currently had the power to call an earlier election for a referendum. City Attorney Lidz said currently, a referendum election was held at the first election more than 90 days after the referendum was certified as having the appropriate number of signatures. The council had the ability to shorten the time period from 90 to 60 days, placing great pressure on the City Recorder’s Office. The proposed change would allow the council to make referendum elections more like initiative elections by giving the council the ability to wait until the next primary or general election to put the item on the ballot. Speaking to Section 2.981, Mr. Zelenka said without thwarting democracy and people’s right to petition, the council could increase voter turnout and avoid spending money for a standalone election in March. The council could have such an election in May, when it would be much cheaper. The public would still be able to vote, but it would be a more prudent business decision for the council. Ms. Bettman called for a provision that added text to the voters’ pamphlet that stated in the case of conflicting measures, whichever got the most votes, even if both passed, would prevail. Ms. Feldman acknowledged that such measures did not occur often. City Attorney Lidz suggested staff could amend the text in the ordinance related to the voters’ pamphlet to that effect. Ms. Bettman thought it should be made clear to the voters. Ms. Solomon referred to Section 2.994 and indicated she did not support the limit of 325 words for arguments submitted by the public. She pointed out there was extra room at the bottom of the page, and if people had something to say, they should be able to fill that space as well. She favored regulating font size, however, suggesting a font size of 9, 10, or 11. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the text read “325 words or the space available.” Ms. Feldman observed that she had been contacted by members of the public with a lot to say who asked if they could use 4 point type, which she felt would be unreadable but which was not currently precluded by code.. City Attorney Lidz was unsure that font sizes were specifically standardized to last the test of time; if that was the case, he believed the City could specify a font size. Mr. Pryor suggested that for the sake of consistency, there be some word limit. He noted the State limited the number of words that could be used. He did not want to limit the ability of people to express their opinions, but he believed a word limit was needed. Mayor Piercy asked about the State word limit. Mr. Pryor suggested the City’s limit be consistent with the State’s word limit. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Pryor about the word count. She said if there was still room on the page after it contained 325 words, staff could determine how many more words would reasonably fit in and still be readable. Ms. Bettman said she did not think the council should have the discretion to not produce a voters’ pamphlet in conjunction with City elections. In situations where there were just EWEB candidates on the ballot, she asked if there was a way to require voters’ pamphlets for such elections. Ms. Feldman said yes, if the council was willing to spend the money. Ms. Bettman thought that it was important to have pamphlets for such races given how disengaged people were and how important such races were. She indicated she would give the issue some thought. Ms. Feldman asked if Ms. Betttman’s focus was on contested races. Ms. Bettman said yes. Ms. Feldman clarified that the City did not have discretion to not have a voter’s pamphlet when it had a measure on the ballot; the City only had discretion when there was an election with no City measures. Only candidates in municipalities of 50,000 or greater could participate in the State voter’s pamphlet and special districts were not included. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a way to require a voters’ pamphlet for such elections. Ms. Feldman said yes, if the council wanted to pay for the pamphlets. Ms. Bettman supported voters’ pamphlets for such things as Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) commissioners’ races and indicated she would be considering text to that effect. Speaking to Section 2.994, Ms. Bettman suggested that the “ballot title” be defined in the glossary because it was news to her that the ballot title included the question, the summary, and the caption. She suggested those terms should be defined in the glossary as well. Referring to Section 2.996, Ms. Bettman asked if staff was proposing to change 54 days to 56 days for the deadline. Ms. Feldman said that 54 days appeared to be “taken out of the air.” Fifty-six days constituted eight weeks, and it was easier to think in terms of weeks and easier to reference. Mr. Zelenka asked how much it would cost to send a voters’ pamphlet for EWEB races to all residents in the case of a contested at-large commission seat. Ms. Feldman indicated she would have to calculate that cost. Mr. Zelenka asked if EWEB could underwrite the cost. Ms. Feldman said the school districts pay their per-page cost on a voluntary basis. She said that option could also be suggested to EWEB. Mr. Zelenka thought that made sense. He said that EWEB could make that choice, and he did not think the City should have to pay for it. Referring to Section 2.996, Ms. Bettman recommended the addition of a provision that proscribed how the City accepted arguments for inclusion in the voters’ pamphlet in terms of their order of appearance. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 2.997 and asked for a provision that stated the City voters’ pamphlet would be mailed no later than the day the ballots were mailed. Ms. Feldman noted that the ballots were mailed thth between the 18 and 14 day before the election. Ms. Bettman wanted similar text. Ms. Feldman said the City might want to look at the deadlines for submitting materials and candidate’s statements as well. Ms. Bettman did not think it made sense for people to be able to vote before they had received the pamphlet. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 10 Work Session Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 11 Work Session