Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/10/07 Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2007—Regular Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson 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 Attach- ment 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 contentious 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting 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 proper- ties, deemed the Amazon Headwaters. She observed that questions were now coming up about the amount of the 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 appreci- ated 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting 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 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 Sotto Sandra 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 contaminants” in the face of research that showed there were alterna- tives 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.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting 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.” 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting 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 connec- tivity. 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 installation 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. 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting 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 irreversible. 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 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting 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 transpar- ent” 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting 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. 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: MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting 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 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting 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. 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting 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 12 Regular Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 1045 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Ur- ban 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 13 Regular Meeting 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. 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 oppo- sition. 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: MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting Resolution 1045 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Ur- ban 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 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 adjust- ment 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 end- ing June 30, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman vot- ing in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 15 Regular Meeting 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 Sec- tions 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. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Attachment A as Council Bill 4960, with the following revisions on page 6 of that ordinance, as follows: ? 30 days Eugene Code 9.7820(1)(c) At least 10 days prior to the date the council considers the Planning Director’s recommendation, notice of the ap- plication that contains the street address or other easily understood geo- graphical 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; 500 feet 2.Owners and occupants of properties located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the subject property; and 3.The neighborhood group or community organization officially rec- ognized 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 on the application the hearing date. One of the postings shall be located site and two more posted at the nearest intersections of arterials and/or collectors within the boundaries of the affected neighborhood organiza- tion(s), if applicable. The maker and second accepted the friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 16 Regular Meeting 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 17 Regular Meeting 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 provide 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 ordi- nance which would be hereafter renumbered to Section 7 of the ordinance. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 18 Regular Meeting 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 vot- ing in favor of the amendment. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to revise the ordinance to in- clude 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 annexation application include the right-of-way if by doing so the annexation would cause unincorporated 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 substitute 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. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that Attachment B would elevate all annexation requests to a public hearing before the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 19 Regular Meeting 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 voting 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 opposition. 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 ses- sion on extraterritorial 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 Headwaters 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 20 Regular Meeting 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 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 authorize the institution of proceedings of eminent do- main 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 au- thorizing proceedings 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 condem- nation 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 21 Regular Meeting 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. 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 minutes. 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 22 Regular Meeting 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 vot- ing in favor. 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 23 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Zelenka, Taylor, Ortiz, and Bett- man voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Poling, Solomon, and Clark voting in op- position. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and the motion passed on a fi- nal 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 24 Regular Meeting