The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 3A-Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 3A 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 February 11, 2008, City Council Meeting, February 12, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, February 19, 2008, Work Session, February 20, 2008, Work Session, and February 25, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. February 11, 2008, City Council Meeting B. February 12, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting C. February 19, 2008, Work Session D. February 20, 2008, Work Session E. February 25, 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\M080414\S0804143A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall February 11, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mike Clark. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She asked for a moment of silence in honor of the tragic killings of two city councilors and the mayor of Kirkwood, Missouri. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Mark Rabinowitz , PO Box 51222, Eugene reiterated the concerns he expressed in the past regarding climate change. He asked what the City of Eugene and Lane County were willing to give up to reduce energy consumption. He noted that a federal comment period was underway regarding the Interstate 5 construction in Glenwood “even though in coming years oil availability” would be reduced. He recalled that Mayor Piercy had voted for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in November. He felt that if the City was truly concerned about climate change it would not support more transportation planning. He criticized the University of Oregon’s plans to build a new arena. He remarked that while the City was waiting for “intelligent urban design” it continued to “rubber stamp” big box stores in west Eugene. He said that it was legal according to Oregon law to bar such development. He alleged that athletes who went to the Olympics in China would be banned from saying anything about human rights or air pollution. He said if Eugene was going to be the human rights city, it should not subsidize a “communist Chinese dictatorship” and its “massive human rights abuses.” Mary Jo Davis , 30519 Overholser Road, Cottage Grove, said she had lived in the woods west of Cottage Grove for 35 years. She related that during this time she had been personally affected by logging. She wished to register her opposition to the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR), which would reopen Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for logging. She submitted a petition signed by over 300 people to the City Council. She averred that the BLM had given three alternatives, all three of which would create more problems. She said the number one reason to oppose the WOPR would be the impact to drinking water that allowing cutting more closely to the river banks would create. She predicted that this would increase the silt in water, decrease retention of water, kill fish, and potentially increase herbicide levels in drinking water. She also predicted this would generate numerous lawsuits. She pointed out that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting preferred plan would increase cutting by 700 percent, though there were “so little of these trees left.” She acknowledged that timber-dependent counties such as Lane County were struggling to provide services due to lagging budgets. She averred that logging old growth was not a long-term solution and would only “put [area residents] in the same place a few years from now.” She said there were better ways, such as thinning areas that had already been cut. She declared that a solution could be found without “cutting down trees that were giants when Lewis and Clark first came to Oregon.” Ron Davis , 30519 Overholser Road, Cottage Grove, submitted a picture of the earth, “our home.” He suggested that they should “ask not what your planet can do for you, ask what you can do for your planet.” He felt that endorsing the WOPR would send a message that it was okay to be out of balance with nature. He pointed out that the federal land was owned collectively by all of the citizens of this country and should be managed wisely. He related that he had heard an interview with author Gary Zukav in which Mr. Zukav likened living in the United States to having already won the lottery. He said if people did not take care of land and forests, they would create poverty and deserts. He understood that nearly 30,000 comments had come in, mostly in opposition to the WOPR. He said concerns had also been raised by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS), and a coalition of eight hunting and fishing groups. He noted that the EPA had specifically expressed concern about the effects of alternative 2 and 3 on drinking water and aquatic species. He averred that they should demand that federal agencies present a more balanced alternative as people could not afford to throw the planet away. th Samantha Chirillo , 157 East 27 Avenue, Apt. 3, co-director of Cascadia’s Ecosystem Advocates and organizer of the WOPR and Beyond Coalition, which represented more than 15 different forest conservation, climate change, and community groups, expressed hope that the council would pass a resolution opposing the WOPR in solidarity with those groups. She asserted that carbon storage capacity of western Oregon forests was the greatest per acre of any forest in the world. She also said water and soil conservation the forests provided was irreplaceable. She opined that Eugene would be a less attractive place to live if the WOPR was approved. She related that the WOPR would increase logging jobs slightly, because so much of the work was now mechanized, but a greater number of jobs would be lost in recreation and eco-tourism. She noted that she had recently participated in a conference for youth and asked the council to please support the youth in their endeavor to create a livable future. Josh Laughlin , 2905 Ferry Street, said he was conservation director of the Eugene-based Cascadia Project, representing approximately 700 members across the country. He stated that old growth forests had drawn him to the area from the east coast, where old growth forests were now gone. He reiterated the value of old trees in relation to carbon storage and drinking water. He related that for the past five to seven years the Eugene BLM had been focusing on restoration, forestry, thinning and managing plantations, and decommis- sioning harmful roads that were “bleeding sediment” into waterways. He said this would change with the WOPR, a “back room settlement/negotiation that proposed to ramp up old growth logging” on federal public lands in western Oregon. He felt they had the opportunity to redirect the BLM’s energy. He related that all of the BLM land up the McKenzie River would become a timber management area and the Coburg Hills area would “go away.” Glen Love , 393 Ful Vue Drive, noted that he had written a letter in opposition to the WOPR to the council a couple of months earlier on behalf of the McKenzie Flyfishers, a group of 120 members in the Eugene/Springfield area. He conveyed the group’s concern regarding the threats to water and fish resources posed by the plan. He said this had been brought to light by EPA opposition to the plan. He stated that the McKenzie Flyfishers joined the EPA in opposing the WOPR. He noted there was no recognition of global warming in the WOPR plan. He averred that 90 percent of the old growth forest in Oregon was gone and MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting much of the remaining 10 percent would be threatened by the plan. He explained that old growth forest conditions take over 1,000 years to regenerate and ultimately ecological conditions could not be replicated. Jeff Devore , 85816 Parklane Circle, noted that he had served as president of the McKenzie Flyfishers in the previous year. He had helped its board to craft a letter in opposition to the WOPR. He had also served as the McKenzie Flyfishers representative on the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC) and had participated in a letter from the MWC opposing the plan. He wished to speak as an individual in support of the “no action alternative.” He resented the amount of money spent working on a plan that basically changed all of the plans that were already in place. He averred that if money had been spent on improving the existing Northwest Forest Plan there could have been more logging and thinning on second growth forests and no one would be arguing about cutting down old growth. He had lost faith in the Forest Service and the BLM to protect the forest; their charter was to protect those forests and it was what they were paid to do. th Mike Russo , 1975 Potter Street, wished to speak about a proposed building for the corner of 19 Avenue and Alder Street. He stated that speakers opposing the building were supported by the South University Neighborhood Association Board, which recognized and supported the neighbors as they tried to have this project modified through discussions on zoning and allowable heights and densities on that street. He said the building was proposed to be seven stories tall and would maximize the number of units while minimizing the setbacks and parking. He added that the “out of town developer” planned to build four-bedroom units and expected to rent to students, but because the required parking was based on the number of units and not on occupancy, the code only required between 39 and 62 parking spaces and the developer’s plan included 40. He believed the project would saturate the neighborhood with parked cars and increase traffic issues. He found it “shocking” that the developer had not committed to retaining an onsite manager to provide support and supervision for the tenants. Mr. Russo declared the building to be “grotesquely” out of character for the neighborhood and a direct contradiction to Growth Management Policy #6, which sought to increase the density of new housing development while maintaining neighborhood character. He acknowl- edged that change would come over time, but area residents were worried that the debate regarding infill was only framed in terms of “up or out.” He felt there was a “wide zone of acceptability” for infill that would balance the need for increased density with an economic return to development and with the need for livability in that neighborhood. He asked for the council’s help to “protect the neighborhood.” ndth Nancy Meyer , 1135 East 22 Avenue, averred there was a huge problem with the R-4 zoning on 19 Avenue that would allow a long wall of very tall buildings that would house hundreds of people. She said the zoning would impact the South University Neighborhood Association, the West University Neighbors, the Fairmount Neighbors, and the University and Olympic Trials. She supported “reasonable density” but believed that inappropriate infill threatened core neighborhoods. She acknowledged that residents who chose to live in the University neighborhood understood they lived in an increasingly dense area filled with students. She felt that “injecting” a seven-story building would defy growth management policies that sought to maintain the character and livability of such neighborhoods as it would be “wildly out of character” with its environs. She noted that the University was capping building height in order to maintain architectural integrity of its campus. She listed similar buildings in town, which included Sacred Heart Hospital, a six-story building, and underscored the traffic issues they created. She asked the City Council to set a deadline for the code amendments and that they request the City Manager to direct staff to spend time with area neighbors to craft a development plan for the neighborhood. Ken Kato , 2060 Agate Street, noted that a packet of images and maps had been included in councilors’ packets. He said he was speaking as a neighbor and also as a topographer. He explained that the two scale drawings he had provided demonstrated that a seven-story building could be 80 to 100 feet tall; in his MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting drawing he estimated the building to be 90 feet tall. He sought to delineate the stark difference in sizes between the larger proposed building and surrounding buildings. th Mike Westervelt , 853 East 20 Avenue, was extremely concerned regarding the proposed seven-story building project. He said Alder Street was a significant bicycle route. He believed the project would create “chaos and danger” for cyclists because the developer was choosing to build with the minimum setbacks, which would reduce visibility. He strongly encouraged the council to revisit the future of the South University Neighborhood. He read a letter from Bill Aspegren, a neighbor. Mr. Aspegren reiterated concerns regarding bicyclist safety, the height of the building, and that only 40 parking spaces were planned. He was not against steps to gain control of sprawl but believed that safety of bicycle routes must take priority over “uncontrolled development.” He urged the council to ask the developer to scale down the project. st Janet Heinonen , 1012 East 21 Avenue, expressed concern that there would be nothing left to connect Eugeneans with their historic roots. She averred that the City was “poised to lose” Civic Stadium and Mac Court. She felt the prospect of a seven-story building “looming over” the University neighborhood was depressing. She believed a “high-rise building for students” without any supervision threatened the residential integrity of the existing neighborhood. She questioned the wisdom of the zoning in the area, noting that zoning allowed up to a 12-story building across the street from R-1 homes. She said the R-3 areas nearby were all characterized by three-story buildings. She thought the original zoning was in the context of grandfathering-in group living residences, mostly fraternities and sororities. She urged the council to address the zoning designation. She recalled the movement to preserve Hayward Field in the 1980s. Marilyn Milne , 2156 Harris Street, remarked that the University neighborhood would have a front row seat for the Olympic Trials. She expressed appreciation for the grants the council provided for the neighborhood groups in recognition of the congestion the trials would bring. She reiterated opposition for the “de facto th dormitory” planned for 19 Avenue and Alder Street. She believed that area of the neighborhood was incorrectly zoned. She predicted Olympic Trials fans would come and go through construction of the building and this could present safety issues. She thought the building, if it was constructed as planned, would be a “big permanent mess” that people would later regret. She believed the City Council could take action by directing the City Manager to have staff work with the area residents on a permanent solution and planning a work session on four topics: a moratorium on the building until after the Infill Compatibility Standards Committee finished its work, a land use code amendment that did not conflict with the Metro Plan, the direction to the Planning Department and City Manager to bring the minor code amendment process forward immediately, and expansion of the definition of infill to also include the number of residents per household. Linda Carnine , 5455 Saratoga Street, opposed the WOPR and supported a resolution against it. She said people were consumers who relied on producers. She averred that old growth forests were some of the best producers in the world. She stated that clear-cutting damaged the McKenzie River and its tributaries. She believed the area was a “jewel” and the cutting of tens of thousands of acres of old growth would be wrong. She also wished to underscore the importance of habitat for other animals. Drix , Ward 3, said he was present because he loved the town. He felt the holes in the downtown area presented a wonderful opportunity because they contained nothing at present. He thought they could be filled with buildings, but said the town should think about what to put in them. He related that he had attended a meeting of the Eugene Tree Foundation and had enjoyed meeting the people there. He noted that Oregon had the largest organism on the planet, a large fungi growing under trees. He also had attended the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting homeless convention. He related that he had his bicycle adjusted there and had met several people who lived under the apartment buildings in his neighborhood. th Gienie Assink , 221 66 Street, Springfield, supported the WOPR plan. She related that democratic leader in the House, Mike Schaufler, had specifically stated on the House floor that timber production was critical for Oregon counties. She declared that trees were a renewable resource and that the Oregon Forest Practices Act required replanting after harvest. She averred that cleared areas benefited wildlife such as the black- tailed deer. She said what was needed was an environmental plan that provided economic and environmental balance by maintaining critical protections in the Northwest Forest Plan as well as making adjustments in order to achieve the timber yield “initially promised.” She challenged the council to come up with a better plan. She pointed out that voters in Lane County had opposed tax increases to cover the costs of services. She averred that if the council was not willing to support a plan that would bring financial stability to the county, what would it propose to do to meet the need? She disputed the notion that old growth still existed in Lane County. She encouraged everyone to research the plan further before opposing it. th Adam Detteer , 542 East 12 Avenue, Apt. 2, noted he was a University of Oregon student. He opposed the WOPR. He argued that even if a forest could be returned to its original state, there would be a value the forests would lose that could not be restored. He declared that this value lay in a forest’s history as a natural place free from the impact of “human manipulation.” He believed that natural places were valuable because they were “beyond the human built world.” He opined that “destroying natural places” would destroy a “window into the world.” He urged everyone not to allow the forests to be logged. David Tvedt , 801 Lynn Lane, asked the City Council to oppose the WOPR. He related that he had explored old growth areas in Lane County and there were not a lot left. He submitted photos of some of those areas, much of which he projected would be logged. He also submitted a photo of an area near McGowan Creek that would be logged. He noted that the Forest Service had indicated that timber sales were “total losers” at present because the value of wood had fallen. He had read through much of the WOPR and felt that it contained many faults. Kathleen Brandt , 1960 Alder Street, related that she and her family had bought an older home in the University neighborhood and were very happy there. She said her kitchen window looked over Alder Street th at 19 Avenue. She underscored that it was a bicycle thoroughfare. She was concerned about the safety of that neighborhood. She noted that in addition to the University population many people traversed the area to go to work at the hospital, another large employer. She did not oppose growth, but she felt the growth had to be undertaken safely. Everett Brandt , 1960 Alder Street, did not think more apartments were needed in the area; there were already enough. He noted that should the building be constructed, he would be looking into the apartments from his bedroom window. John Sihler , 4235 Brae Burn Drive, member of the McKenzie Flyfishers, noted that he was present to speak in regard to the Wiper Measure 37 claim. He said homeowners needed stability as much or more than business owners. He quoted from the dedication of the cemetery, which dated to 1929, which directly indicated that it was intended for public cemetery purposes. He related that the Edgewood West Park Association, consisting of over 80 homeowners, had written a letter in opposition to the claim. He averred that if the cemetery had made a claim that intended to construct residential homes while perpetuating the 75- foot buffer zone, it might have garnered more support from the neighborhood. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, spoke regarding Crest Drive road improvements. He requested that the council require that bicycle lanes be included in all of the uphill parts of the project. He said he had gone to a bicycle conference at which Michael Ronkin, former Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) bike/pedestrian coordinator, had made the point that more so than safety bicycle lanes were created to make a predictable and visible flow of bicycle traffic. He underscored that the Crest Drive/Storey Boule- vard/Friendly Street area contained significant grades and speed differences combined with poor visibility on curves. He reiterated that area residents who were dependent on bicycles for transportation had spoken to the Mayor and Councilor Bettman, representing over 100 signers on a petition, requesting bicycle lanes. He also submitted a petition signed by three-quarters of the people who had attended the Bicycle/Pedestrian Summit and approximately 40 people who attended the climate gatherings in the previous week at the University of Oregon. He commented that in his experience the council’s constituents overwhelmingly approve bicycle accommodations. He recommended the councilors go to the area and look into it themselves either on a bicycle or in a car. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. She thanked everyone opposing the construction of the seven-story building in the University neighborhood for coming and involving themselves in a civic discussion. She said the building presented tough issues for considera- tion. She noted that Councilor Taylor would put a motion in opposition to the WOPR on the table after the Consent Agenda item Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for testifying. She appreciated the input given regarding the seven-story building. Councilor Zelenka thanked the University neighborhood residents for coming. He said the neighborhood was sincerely concerned about protecting the character and compatibility in their neighborhood. He felt this highlighted the need for the work that the Infill Compatibility Committee was doing and the need for refinement plans and the City creating ways to finance those plans. He also wished to call attention to the first page of the booklet they had submitted. He supported modifying the R-4 zoning so that it created a more “graceful edge” to the neighborhood. He intended to ask the council for a work session on this topic. He also thanked those present who had spoken in regard to the WOPR. Councilor Solomon thanked Ms. Assink for being the lone advocate for the WOPR. She stated that more than 50 percent of Oregon was owned by the government, which did not pay taxes. She declared that the county would benefit from harvesting trees as it would generate funds that would help people. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone. She appreciated the input from the University neighbors in opposition to the seven-story building. She hoped the City Council would pass the resolution she intended to place on the table. She said it was important to protect what was left of the old growth forests as it was critical to water quality, land stability, carbon storage, and quality of life. Councilor Taylor noted that Mr. Love’s son, Dr. Stanley Love, was in space on a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mission. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. She remarked that there had been a point in time when the residential zoning designations had the ranges of allowable density changed. She asserted that at the time R-2 “looked more like high density” and commercial uses were permitted within R-3 and R-4. She wanted to know when this change had occurred. She thought the proposed building was an example of the failure to move forward opportunity-siting in a “meaningful way.” She believed that opportunity-siting would take neighborhoods and downzone areas that needed protection and then would allow the utilization of MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting the “expertise of the people in the neighborhood” to determine what opportunities lay within the neighbor- hood to provide “very high density housing.” She averred that high density housing could be then placed in a neighborhood without “destroying the fabric of the entire neighborhood.” She supported holding a work session on the item. Councilor Bettman indicated she would support the resolution in opposition of the WOPR. She recalled a time in which she had worked as a tree planter. She felt it was a big mistake to engage in clear cutting. She opined that timber contracts often cost more to implement than they brought in for revenue. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - September 18, 2007, Work Session - November 27, 2007, Workshop - December 18, 2007, Work Session - January 7, 2008, State of the City - January 16, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted corrections to the minutes. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections to the minutes, without objection, approved. Councilor Ortiz noted that her husband’s name was Gino and not Nino, as printed in the minutes of the State of the City address, dated January 7, 2008. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar with the acknowledged minutes corrections was passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy noted that Councilor Clark was ill. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to adopt Resolution No. 4928, a resolution opposing the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed Western Oregon Plan Re- vision by the City Council of the City of Eugene. Councilor Taylor acknowledged that the Eugene City Council had no jurisdiction over the plan. Councilor Ortiz indicated her support for the resolution. She said even though the resolution was a statement and had no ability to affect the outcome of the WOPR, it was important for the community to take a stand. She did not believe the plan revision would benefit the community Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:2; councilor Poling and Solomon voting in opposition. 3. ACTION: Charles Wiper, Inc. Measure 37 Claim (M37 06-4) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4926 denying a Measure 37 claim of Charles Wiper, Inc. for property identified as Assessor’s Map 18- 03-18-00, Tax Lot 300. Councilor Solomon opposed the motion. She believed that the Wipers had a valid claim. She disagreed with staff’s analysis. She opined that this was “precisely the reason” that people voted for Ballot Measure 37 in the first place. She averred that the Wipers were asking to develop property that had never been intended for the internment of human remains. She said they should be able to develop that property “any way they want” within the parameters of the Eugene Code. Roll call vote; the motion passed 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT B Deleted: A M I N U T E S Joint Elected Officials Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council/Lane Board of County Commissioners McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 12, 2008 6 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Woodrow, Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie, Anne Ballew, Joe Pishioneri. Councilor Dave Ralston was excused. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Faye Stewart, Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson. Commissioners Bill Fleenor and Bill Dwyer were excused. 1. JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING: Discussion of Inter-Jurisdictional Priorities His Honor Mayor Sid Leiken opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Commissioner Stewart opened the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council and welcomed the members of the Springfield City Council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stewart thanked the City of Eugene for hosting the meeting and thanked everyone for attending. Review and Discussion of Issues List Joint Commissioner Stewart stated that each governmental body had concerns. He referred to the three-page Elected Officials Meeting: Issues List February 12, 2008. dated He hoped to discuss the issues list and then approaches on how to address those items on the list. He wanted to establish some priorities and the next steps to take. He asked Mayor Piercy to begin the discussion. Mayor Piercy reviewed the list of issues that the Eugene City Council submitted, as follows: ? Homelessness, something the City Council believed should be “on the top of our minds” as it was a big issue for the entire community and the broader region; ? The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) – House Bill (HB) 3337 created separate urban growth boundaries (UGBs) for Springfield and Eugene and requires Metro Plan amendments; ? Public safety, the jurisdictions need to work together to provide the best services possible; MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 1 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils ? Enhance understanding of race issues and improve race relations; ? Transportation planning and funding – the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) has adopted the Regional Transportation Plan that called for the TransPlan to be consistent with it; ? The Eugene council desired a discussion on Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) and the transportation funding needed for preservation and maintenance. Mayor Leiken stated the following: ? The Springfield City Council was in agreement that the TransPlan work plan issue was important as were the Metro Plan UGB changes that had arisen from HB 3337. ? Springfield wanted to bring forward the need for an update of the population projections. Mayor Leiken averred that Eugene and Springfield needed to have separate projections. He said Springfield prepared its final draft of the residential lands study and was initiating a study of industrial lands. He wanted to ensure that, with that information, the projections would show where the two cities needed to go. Commissioner Stewart presented three items from the Lane Board of County Commissioners: ? The commissioners had concerns related to the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190 agreements of urban transition between the city limits and UGBs and that sometimes citizens in that area did not feel they had representation; ? Financial/revenue concerns – property tax revenue was substantially reduced by ballot measures 5, 47, and 50 and the County was experiencing difficulty in meeting the demands of its citizens for ser- vices. One of the problems lay in the Metro Plan and what it required to create a special district; ? The commissioners also had concerns regarding how resource areas, farm ground and forest ground, could be protected as growth was allowed to occur. Commissioner Stewart remarked that none of the elected officials around the table were present when some of the agreements and working documents had been established, such as the Metro Plan. He shared the frustration other elected officials felt as to how those agreements applied and as to whether they were working in the present. He agreed that it might be time to look into them and see if they could be improved to help serve the citizens better. Commissioner Stewart encouraged the elected officials who were present to make comments that were constructive and positive. Discussion – Preferred Approach(es) to Address Issues and Establishment of Priorities Commissioner Stewart asked to go around the table in order to garner input on preferred approaches to addressing the issues. He noted that the Joint Elected Officials would likely have to meet again since it would not be possible to tackle all of the issues in one sitting. Mayor Piercy suggested forming cross-jurisdictional groups to meet given the magnitude of the issues. Eugene Councilor Bettman believed the issues were shared but the strategies of the jurisdictions were different. She pointed out that all of the jurisdictions wanted to improve public safety but she believed the County wished to establish a special district to do so. She recalled that the Eugene City Council had not supported the establishment of such a district in the past. She acknowledged that the Metro Plan amend- ments would have to be dealt with given the passage of HB 3337. She thought the cities of Eugene and Springfield could come up with separate drafts for the amendments and then reconcile the two. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 2 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Commissioner Sorenson supported working collaboratively on mutual issues. He declared that to say that Lane County was in a difficult position was an understatement. He stated that the community at large would be significantly affected if the budget currently under consideration came to pass as of July 1, 2008. He listed some of the cuts, which include a reduction in the number of Lane County Jail beds to 12, elimination of the Lane County Public Health Department, and virtually eliminating the Department of Youth Services. He underscored that this was not a budget that one commissioner championed, but rather was a joint decision of the whole Board, made under dire circumstances. He reiterated that to say the community was facing a significant impact of the proposed budget was a “complete understatement.” He felt that the elected officials would look back on the current meeting and ask themselves what they did in anticipation of July 1, 2008. He wanted to get the conversation on to the “harsh reality.” He said the County needed the help of the city jurisdictions to ameliorate the impacts of the coming budget on their respective constituents. Springfield Councilor Lundberg agreed there were some issues that overlapped more than others, and cited the need for Metro Plan amendments as one of them. She thought it would need immediate attention because it would take a while. Councilor Lundberg agreed with Commissioner Sorenson that the County was faced with the most challenging scenario of the three jurisdictions. She said special districts could be a remedy. She was uncertain what they would be or how they would look at this point. She indicated she would prioritize special districts and TransPlan and Metro Plan changes as they were things that could be worked on jointly. Eugene Councilor Ortiz said her challenge lay in that she did not want to discuss special districts without going to the voters. She underscored that this was not because she did not believe it to be a good idea. She expressed appreciation for the joint meeting and agreed that the jurisdictions should meet more often. Councilor Ortiz agreed that the Metro Plan issues needed to be addressed and that there were issues of public safety that should be discussed. Councilor Ortiz also wanted the communities to work on being more inclusive. She said the jurisdictions should encourage communities of color to be more involved. Commissioner Green said when the urban transition agreement was developed 20-plus years ago it had been a useful tool to help guide cooperation and partnerships throughout the region. He thought it merited revisiting but he did not believe this could happen without revising the Metro Plan agreements, especially in regard to the provision of services. He pointed out that the County was the designated provider of services to residents who live outside the city limits. He stated that the question was how to fund the services, adding that if the services were not provided through a special district then what should be the medium for service provision? Commissioner Green felt there was a need for a body that was dedicated to coming up with resolutions. He opined that there were “enough bodies coming up with conflicts.” He asked how they could “get to yes.” He noted that the MPC had once been seen as the body. He wanted to create an independent body consisting of citizens and elected officials that would work toward agreements. Eugene City Councilor Poling likened narrowing the list of priorities to trying to choose which child was the “favorite child.” He said public safety was important to him. He believed the whole public safety system was on the verge of “absolute failure.” MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 3 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Councilor Poling thanked the commissioners for bringing up the ORS 190 issues. He believed that some of the Metro Plan amendments were “housekeeping” and could be easily addressed, and then the more complex issues should be tackled. He added that he had no objections to making the Joint Elected Officials a regular meeting. Eugene Councilor Solomon appreciated the effort made to bring the three jurisdictions together. She believed it was a legitimate use of time. She liked the “problem-solving tenor” that had been established. Eugene Councilor Zelenka said the jurisdictions needed to focus on transportation planning, the Metro Plan, and public safety. He remarked that the big issue related to public safety was how to pay for it and where the resources should come from. He added that the jurisdictions should also address triage and how they could cooperate. Springfield Councilor Ballew noted that the jurisdictions were against the clock with regard to the changes required by HB 3337. She said they also needed to be in agreement on the TransPlan and the Regional Transportation Plan. Additionally, she agreed that the three jurisdictions needed to address the County’s financial situation. It seemed to her that public safety or public health would be a “good place to start.” Eugene Councilor Taylor averred that they needed fewer organizations and not more. She felt that the things the jurisdictions needed to discuss together were the things they could not solve themselves, such as homelessness. She said they needed to think about what the three jurisdictions could lobby together for. She felt that if there were a lot of services for homeless people in one place, the homeless people would go there. Regarding transportation funding, Councilor Taylor averred that the “day-to-day stuff” people really cared about were potholes. She felt that there were things the City could not do by itself but could be done on a county level. She supported holding a discussion on whether to form an ACT. Springfield Councilor Pishioneri wanted the group to create a strategy for addressing the issues. He said they needed to prioritize the issues and if it came to potholes versus public safety, the latter seemed more important. He wanted to look at all of the issues raised by the jurisdictions and to determine what they had to do and what was not required to be done. Eugene Councilor Clark agreed with Commissioner Green and Councilor Ortiz that the Joint Elected Officials should have quarterly discussions. He believed that all of the issues affected more than one jurisdiction. His priorities included public safety and updates to the Metro Plan. He thought the Metro Plan was outdated and needed to be revised. He saw the serious financial shortfalls the County was facing as a challenge to all three jurisdictions. He supported approaching priority setting from a regional perspective. Councilor Clark stated, as the representative for the Santa Clara area, that he was concerned that the jurisdictions did not have a group of citizens who were county residents and were not provided services because of the changes at the state level brought about by Senate Bill (SB) 417. He wanted to ensure that before such a law was enacted there were agreements between the City and the County that provided citizens with recourse should provision of services become an issue. Springfield Councilor Wylie noted that the Metro Plan had been mentioned on all three of the lists of issues and, as such, she thought it was a good place to start. She was interested in working on the TransPlan and transportation issues. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 4 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Councilor Wylie stated that the public safety and public health issues would affect everyone. She averred that they needed to be thinking clearly about how those issues would affect each jurisdiction. She noted that she served on the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Financing Homelessness and Housing Programs and that she intended to keep working on social issues. Springfield Councilor Woodrow thanked everyone for meeting together. He agreed with Commissioner Green that there should be an inter-jurisdictional committee or commission that “gets to yes.” He averred that by working together the jurisdictions could resolve some of the issues they faced. He suggested that staff from Eugene and Springfield could work together on the housekeeping portions of the Metro Plan amendments and prepare a recommendation. Councilor Woodrow said public safety and ORS 190 were most important to the jurisdictions. He felt an inter-jurisdictional committee could work on those issues. He added that he would be happy to collaborate on such a committee. Eugene Councilor Pryor felt there were common issues that could be perceived as the “low hanging fruit.” In reviewing the lists he noted that the Metro Plan amendments, public safety, transportation issues, and the provision of urban services had risen to the top. He also agreed that the three jurisdictions should meet more often, perhaps quarterly. He suggested that by meeting more frequently they could handle the issues in steps. He agreed that it could be prudent to create subcommittees or task forces to work inter-jurisdictionally on the individual issues and then have the subgroups report back to the larger group. Mayor Leiken called the meeting a good start. He saw common themes in the discussion. He called the Metro Plan the “800 pound gorilla in the room.” He believed that if they dealt with the Metro Plan issues they could address the ORS 190 agreements because they were in conjunction. He said even the public safety issues fell under the Metro Plan. He also supported addressing the issue of homelessness. He felt the Project Homeless Connect should be more than a one-day event. Commissioner Stewart opened the table for another round of comments. Councilor Bettman said, in terms of creating a new body that would take on conflict resolution, this had been the charge of the MPC. She asked if the bodies would want to discuss reforming the MPC so that it was more representative and had a democratic voting process. She preferred meeting regularly as the Joint Elected Officials. Councilor Bettman stated that the Metro Plan changes she spoke of were strictly with regard to HB 3337. She was not talking about changing who would be the provider of urban services or special districts or other ways the Metro Plan could be amended in order to facilitate some of the other issues. Regarding urban transition, she wondered why the County would want to take on the corresponding planning and permitting for it. Councilor Bettman commented, in terms of an ACT, that if they started with a “functioning process” for prioritizing transportation projects that had been vetted through the elected bodies and the communities and had multiple stakeholders working through a democratic process, the other transportation issues would “resolve themselves.” Councilor Clark requested that any subcommittees or work groups formed provide their results to the Joint Elected Officials and not just individual jurisdictions. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 5 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Commissioner Sorenson remarked that he would prefer that the group give some direction and say that the MPC process should be reformed. He reiterated that the number of jail beds would be reduced to 12 under the proposed budget and pointed out that currently the Lane County Jail housed eight people suspected of murder. He questioned why a process would be set up to meet quarterly if they were not meeting about “front burner issues.” Councilor Zelenka did not want to create more bureaucracy. He averred that they should fix what they had instead of creating something new. Councilor Zelenka thought the largest problem with the TransPlan issue was that it needed a functional prioritization scheme for the community about what the transportation needs were and where the funding should go. He hoped they would end up creating some committees made up of equal representation from the three different bodies on transportation, on planning, on public safety, and potentially on homelessness issues. He thought the committees could create work products for the review of the whole body. He echoed Councilor Taylor in that these were the issues that the individual jurisdictions could not do alone. Councilor Ortiz acknowledged that there was a looming crisis. She did not want to walk away from the meeting without having a mechanism in place to address some of the issues. She said while fixing the roads and amending the Metro Plan were important, if they were not keeping the community safe and were not addressing issues with Emergency Medical Services and the youth issues then they were not tackling real needs. Mayor Piercy said she would like to know how the City should look at the situation the other jurisdictions were in and to identify the challenges and determine how to get together to work on them. She also thought they needed to find ways to address these issues legislatively. Councilor Woodrow remarked that part of the problem with understanding Lane County’s situation was that the cities did not have the same information that the County had. He envisioned the process that Commis- sioner Green suggested as providing the public complete access to this information. Councilor Woodrow said the people who work on the MPC did not work on public safety. He agreed that the Joint Elected Officials should meet quarterly and also supported statements made that suggested that any subcommittees of this meeting should report to the quarterly meeting and not individual jurisdictions. Councilor Pryor did not want to create something that duplicated what already existed. He felt that if the MPC was working it should be kept as it was. He also supported quarterly meetings of the Joint Elected Officials. Regarding the formation of subcommittees, Councilor Pryor said the groups should have defined purposes and mandates and when the work was completed, the groups should be disbanded. Councilor Bettman did not think “spawning” subcommittees would answer the questions. Commissioner Green related an example of a jurisdictional partnership that had been formed to collabora- tively address a service provision issue. He stated that the City of Charlotte, North Carolina and Mecklen- burg County had gotten together over 20 years ago because the county had arrived at the conclusion that it could no longer afford to provide the full services of the county. He said the county approached the City of Charlotte and the city had decided to do the patrolling and to handle the jail, as the city population was larger than that of the county. He doubted if this type of collaboration would work in this area but he set it forth as MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 6 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils an example of people getting together to achieve a solution. He said if this was a challenge that some people were not willing to step up to, then the problems would still be here. In response to concerns expressed about the creation of another layer of bureaucracy, Commissioner Green pointed out that an ACT was just such a layer and was not required by the State. He noted that Lane County was not the only jurisdiction that did not have an ACT. He averred that they needed to determine what worked best for the area. He suggested that someone demonstrate the benefits of forming an ACT. He had talked to several other commissions on transportation around the state and believed there were plusses and minuses to such an endeavor. Councilor Lundberg cited Team Springfield, which was a joint venture by public agencies to fund bicycle patrols, as another example of cooperation for a common goal. She said as those who made all of the ordinances, the elected officials had the responsibility to come up with solutions to local issues. Aside from the transportation issues that needed to be dealt with right away, she was looking at public safety as it was a “huge issue and a huge budget issue.” She averred that the Human Services Commission (HSC) and the Housing Policy Board (HPB) could potentially focus on a set of tasks with regard to homelessness. She observed that the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) was a huge group that was sometimes cumbersome. She suggested they pull out the elected officials from that group to focus on public safety. She thought the same approach could be taken to the MPC and a focus subgroup could be formed. She added her willingness to meet quarterly. Councilor Clark recalled that he had brought the County’s “cut list” to the Eugene Budget Committee the previous year. He felt there was not a crisis of will; it was a crisis of certainty. He declared that the jurisdictions of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County, had “some of the finest staff in the country.” He had no doubt they would come up with potential solutions if the jurisdictions would commit to working together. He thought the subcommittees should determine what service levels were expected and then ask staff to explore what it would take to get to those levels. Commissioner Sorenson reiterated the direness of the county budget situation. He suggested having the two mayors meet with Commissioner Stewart and return before the Joint Elected Officials with what they should be considering. He questioned the necessity of starting another whole process when the HSC, HPB, PSCC and other groups already existed to work on these problems. Councilor Ballew stressed that they did not have limitless time nor did they have limitless staff. She underscored the need to work on what they could do, e.g. the work resulting from the passage of HB 3337. She acknowledged that the County’s financial crisis would affect everyone. She suggested that they ask staff to return with the impacts of the crisis on their jurisdictions. Councilor Wylie thought they could work on some of the issues. She commented that if there was another school shooting, or someone shot on the street in Eugene, or rabid dogs attacking children, citizens would come to their elected officials asking what they had done to plan for this day. She said the County’s crisis was coming. Mayor Piercy surmised that they needed an emergency plan in order to get through a potentially difficult time. Commissioner Stewart stated that despite what would happen with the County’s financial problems, there would still be some services taking place. He said they had a plan and were trying to deal with the coming situation. He related that the County Commissioners had tried to create a funding solution to solve the MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 7 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils problem but the citizens had not supported its actions. He thought the County could still see some relief before July 1 but it did not mean they would not plan for it. He believed that they could do multiple things including land use planning in spite of the potential shortfall. Commissioner Stewart summarized what had been said thus far: ? There was support for looking at the Metro Plan, with general support for looking at the immediate problems facing the Metro Plan and the people who were affected, as a result of HB 3337. ? There was interest in reviewing the Metro Plan to look at the general housekeeping issues and the urban transitional agreements and special districts. ? There was a strong interest in public safety and concerns expressed about financing fire and police services and how to keep funding for them going. ? There was strong interest in the TransPlan, potential interest in an ACT, and how to fund road repairs. ? Some interest was expressed in forming a resolution body between the three jurisdictions. ? Some interest was also expressed in pursuing solutions to homelessness. Commissioner Stewart observed that there was strong interest in meeting on a quarterly basis. Councilor Bettman wanted to take the topics that had been raised back to the individual bodies in order to make the decisions there. She explained that the Eugene City Council could review the Metro Plan and determine where it should be fixed. She felt that using the “opportunity” of HB 3337 to address a “whole Christmas wish list” of other items was not efficient. She averred that those were policy decisions that must be made by the elected body. Mayor Piercy noted that the majority of the Eugene City Council had voted to do only the “minimum planning.” Councilor Pishioneri said he preferred having the hired experts look at the problems and offer up multiple options for the elected officials to consider based on “their educated points of view.” He underscored that they were paid to be a resource and should serve as such. Commissioner Green said he had observed each body’s process. He asked how the Joint Elected Officials would “get to yes” after the individual elected bodies had met and considered the issues. He asked what mechanism would drive the three jurisdictions to move forward; what voting procedure would it use? He averred that it would be helpful at some point in time if the three groups could have a discussion on developing a mechanism that they could agree upon to “get to yes.” He stressed that the three jurisdictions still had to figure out how to agree regardless of which issues they decided to take on. Councilor Pishioneri concurred. He supported working with their counterparts to reach the same options to move forward with. He thought they could make progress on some issues in this way. Councilor Ortiz asked for input from the two respective city managers and the county administrator. pro tem Eugene City Manager Angel Jones commented that the jurisdictions were all “part of the same puzzle.” She said part of the joint meeting was intended to determine how to move forward while recogniz- ing that the three jurisdictions did not always agree. She felt the starting point should be where there was agreement and then to move into strategizing on how to find agreement on the points on which they did not agree. She remarked that from a staff perspective, those issues were discussed all of the time and it seemed the jurisdictions were not that far apart when looking at the “big picture.” She agreed that staff should take a MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 8 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils look at the top priorities and then come up with some options because it was their job to do so. She underscored that they needed to do it collectively because they did not have unlimited resources, they were speaking of the same pool in terms of the community at large, and they were dealing with the same issues and having the same impacts. Lane County Administrator Jeff Spartz noted that he had served in this capacity for six weeks. He averred that from what he had seen in the interactions of the Joint Elected Officials, they should “grab hold of a couple of the issues” and work with them. Regarding public safety, he remarked that it was “amazing” how common the threads were from one jurisdiction to another in the country. He believed that what would solve the problems would be to identify the larger ones and then worry about the nuances later. He suggested that if one method did not work they should move on to another method. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi felt that the TransPlan was a common issue. He suggested that they should first take a look at the scope and start working through a work plan. He saw the MPC as the perfect vehicle to do so. He observed that the County had “a lot of energy around” the ORS 190 agreements. He thought the best place to start there was to get a proposal from the County and this discussion could take place at the MPC or a subcommittee of that body. Regarding HB 3337, he recounted that the suggestion had been made to look at the conforming language and see what issues arose from that. He suggested that one or both jurisdictions come up with the conforming language and then see where the differences lay and work from there. Regarding Commissioner Green’s suggestion to form a separate body to “get to yes,” Mr. Grimaldi thought they could either look at a separate body or look at modifying the functions of the MPC. He observed that special districts were an issue between the jurisdictions. He suggested that they work on resolution, but if no resolution could be achieved, then the jurisdictions needed to acknowledge this and move on. Councilor Zelenka concurred. He thought there should be four committees for the different areas of concern, with the MPC potentially serving as the entity to focus on transportation issues. He supported having staff scope out the issues and narrow and define them in order to find the areas of agreement. He suggested having the information that resulted from these activities brought back to the Joint Elected Officials as he felt it was the group that should “get to yes.” Mayor Leiken called the meeting a good start. He reminded everyone that the public was watching. He believed the jurisdictions needed “a couple of successes” or they would lose their credibility. Regarding the public safety bond, he recalled that the three jurisdictions had worked together and the bond had nearly passed. He averred that if all of the jurisdictions focused on one big issue a lot of good work would come of it. Councilor Bettman agreed that they should focus on “small, doable, and mandated activities” first. She did not agree that the decisions should be made by the larger body unless they had been vetted through the individual jurisdictions. She opined that it could be “to their advantage” to have a “metro police force.” She averred that this was a policy issue that needed to be vetted in each jurisdiction. She felt it would not be possible because the three public safety agencies were run in different ways. Commissioner Green complimented Mr. Spartz. He agreed that they should “grab a couple of issues” and work on them. He clarified for Councilor Bettman that he had not brought up an idea of metro policing as an avenue for the three jurisdictions to pursue; rather, he had brought it up as an example of inter-jurisdictional collaboration. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 9 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Commissioner Green did not think the MPC was the appropriate body to resolve issues because of its voting structure. He recalled his service as a Eugene City Councilor. He pointed out that at the time he and past Springfield Councilor Lyle Hatfield could have a conflict arise between jurisdictions and then work to reach a resolution. Councilor Wylie noted that Commissioner Stewart had assured everyone that the County was looking at fiscal options but she pointed out that there were only four months until July 1. She felt the cities were not as “on top of it” as the County was and asked for an analysis of when to put some emergency services into place. Commissioner Stewart offered to make presentations on the current options for the County budget based on the different fiscal scenarios. Mayor Piercy indicated her interest in better understanding how it would affect the communities. She added that for her it was important for the three jurisdictions to have “really good discussions.” She thought that what happened when they arrived at a decision point was a “whole other thing.” She averred that there were different philosophies and ways that the different communities decided to move and operate. She felt there were things that they shared and agreed upon and things they did not share and agree upon. She wanted to look for places where they could agree. Commissioner Sorenson related that the commission had been in a multi-meeting process to provide direction to the staff on the budget process. He stated that the target date for release of the budget was April 21 and that the hearings and public comment period needed to be completed by the end of May. Commissioner Sorenson commented that there were a number of multi-jurisdictional bodies in Lane County. He did not perceive the MPC as being non-functional given that there had only been one veto in ten years. He felt that if a body such as the HSC was not functioning, the governing bodies should bring members before them and ask why it was not working. Councilor Lundberg surmised that there was general agreement that staff could move forward with the Metro Plan issues. She supported meeting quarterly. She pointed out that the three jurisdictions had agreed on many plans in the past. Councilor Woodrow expressed some concern that waiting 90 days to meet again was too long given the potential emergency situation the County was facing. He added that the veto power that could be exercised at the MPC sometimes precluded having a conversation about an issue. He supported coming up with a method to reach a solution. Work Assignments – Next Steps Commissioner Stewart summarized the conversation and proposed the following as next steps: ? Regarding the public safety issue, he suggested that he try to get on the next available city council agendas in order to provide a status report on the budget process; ? The HSC, PSCC, and other relevant bodies will discuss the issues related to their respective mis- sions; ? He asked the Mayors if it would be possible to meet with the City Managers and the County Admin- istrator together as one to discuss the Metro Plan and transportation issues; ? Another meeting of the Joint Elected Officials should be scheduled for April. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 10 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Councilor Ballew said she would like to see the bodies be more “vigorous” and to be more prepared to take action. She declared that the time to talk was running short. Councilor Taylor commented that if the problem with public safety was related to money she did not see what the bodies could do about it. She asked what good it was to talk about it. Councilor Taylor recalled an inter-jurisdictional group that had met to discuss transportation problems some years earlier. She felt that no one had acted on the suggestions that had been made. Commissioner Green supported the list as Commissioner Stewart presented it. He stressed the importance of “starting somewhere.” Regarding the public safety issue, he underscored that the County was a subdivision of the State; the question that the jurisdictions should leave with was what backup plan they would have in the event that the County had the ‘no new revenue’ scenario. He said, as an example, they should consider what their plan would be when local prisoners could not be taken to the county jail. Commissioner Stewart thanked everyone for meeting. He felt it had been a good meeting and he looked forward to the next one. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 7:56 p.m. Mayor Leiken adjourned the meeting of the Springfield City Council at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones Pro Tem City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— February 12, 2008 Page 11 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Special Session McNutt Room—City Hall February 19, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the executive session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION In accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(b), the Eugene City Council met in executive session. Mayor Piercy adjourned the executive session and called the council into open session at 6:33 p.m. B. WORK SESSION Procedures and Guidelines for City Council Employees Mayor Piercy announced that Lane County District Attorney Douglas Harcleroad had indicated his investigation was complete and he concluded there was no evidence of any violation of State criminal statutes by Police Auditor Cristina Beamud. The case would proceed to an administrative investigation. Mayor Piercy reviewed the motion passed unanimously by the council in executive session: Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to ask complainant (Swanson) to provide a written report describing the factual basis for his assertions; provide that written report to the Police Auditor so that she can prepare a response; and then, based on that information (as well as other information from the District Attorney’s investigation), decide (a) more in- formation is needed (gathered through some type of additional investigation), or (b) suffi- cient information exists for the council to act on the complaint. The council would consider that information in a follow-up executive session to be scheduled on March 12, 2008. Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell indicated that staff would provide a response to councilors’ questions about when the City had received the complaint and how it worked through the organization to the point the council was informed. That information would be delivered to the council the next day or the following day. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 1 Special Session Mayor Piercy said the council also oversaw the City Manager and Municipal Court Judge but it was her understanding that there were no guidelines in place for processing complaints against those individuals. Speaking to the question of whether there was an existing complaint process for the positions mentioned by Mayor Piercy, Ms. Bettman reviewed City Code Section 2.4860, related to the public official code of ethics complaint process for elected and appointed officials, the City Manager, and the Municipal Court Judge. Those sections stipulated that the City Attorney was to determine if such complaints had merit, and she believed that in this instance, the City Attorney should have determined if the complaint had merit. She said the process was laid out to the point of investigation of the complaint. She thought the section should include specific mention of council-hired employees and of directing those complaints to both the City Attorney and the council. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the council could choose to amend that section of the code to include the Police Auditor. He clarified that code provisions in question were for complaints related to the part of the code cited by Ms. Bettman. The council could adopt that process for whatever complaints it received against its employees. He suggested the council should think about how quickly it wanted to be notified of such complaints. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, City Attorney Klein said that misuse of office could encompass more than a violation of the ethics code. The council could determine that something was a violation of policy that would not be a violation of the ethics code. Mayor Piercy suggested that the cited section was a good starting place, although it might not cover everything the council wanted to cover. Mr. Clark asked City Attorney Klein if there were other ways to proceed on such complaints or a different type of complaint so the council could choose from the best of all available options. City Attorney Klein suggested the council could design whatever system met the majority of its objections. He suggested that complaints were directed by the code to his office in order to provide some distance between the organization and the complainant. He emphasized his client was the City, not a judge, manager, or auditor, so a rationale for such an approach was that his duty was to the City as a whole and he was legally obligated to bring any complaint to the council’s attention. He recommended the council consider whether he should take complaints to the entire body, the Mayor, or the officers. Mr. Clark recalled that the council had some issues related to the performance of the previous manager in regard to the dissemination of information and the council had agreed that the manager would contact all councilors about emerging situations that might appear in the media. He said that in this case, he was still “smarting” that it took several days for word to reach him that a complaint existed. That information should have been provided to all councilors and the Mayor the instance it was recognized as an emerging situation. He wanted to ensure that in the future, that occurred. Mr. Zelenka agreed with the remarks of Mr. Clark. He said that notice should have been given to all councilors, and in cases of this magnitude, it was critical. He recommended that staff be directed to outline several options for the council to consider. He also wanted a process to deal with someone who abused the system or engaged in criminal conduct by making frivolous accusations. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Clark and noted a past instance where she had requested notice and it had not seemed a like a big request but it seemed to staff like another step to take. She suggested the council discuss the issue with the new manager, and suggested the possibility of a council telephone tree to make each councilor aware of the information when it became available. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 2 Special Session Mr. Zelenka left the meeting for another obligation. Mr. Poling also felt “left out in the cold” in regard to the situation. He hoped any process the council developed included a section on how the council or its employee made comments to the press. He had been unaware of the press conference that had been called until it happened and thought the council should have been informed of it. Mr. Poling cautioned the council against taking sides on the issue and suggested it limit its comments so as to not favor one side over another. Ms. Taylor called for immediate council notification of such situations by both telephone and e-mail. She said that staff should make sure the councilors received notification by requesting call-backs. She did not think it was too much effort for staff to contact nine people. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka’s remarks regarding abuse of the process, Mr. Clark cautioned the council against making such statements. Any employee of the City had the right to complain if they thought they were treated unfairly, and the council was obliged to address those complaints fairly and equitably. He hoped the council could do so in this case. Mayor Piercy said it appeared the council was interested in using the current code section related to the code of ethics as a model for proceeding. Assistant City Manager Luell said that staff would use that section as a basis and attempt to craft some different options as suggested by Mr. Zelenka, incorporating a communica- tion element. Mayor Piercy said that since the police auditor was the council’s employee, she thought it incumbent on the auditor to inform the council of the situation since she did not report to the manager. Mr. Clark questioned whether that was the best procedure. Ms. Bettman said Mayor Piercy’s remarks highlighted why the council needed to know the chain of custody of the complaint, which was dated February 4, but which was not seen by the council until February 12. If the complaint was against the auditor, the auditor might not see it as fast as the council. For that reason, she wanted to look at the past chain of custody and where the gaps existed. Ms. Bettman said the council lacked time to explore the nuances of the bifurcated process she foresaw as it related to criminal and administrative complaints and verifying the reality of the complaint. She envisioned a variety of complaints and conflicts that could exist and suggested the council might wish to categorize those. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the council officers to develop a sug- gested process for how the council will respond to complaints that are filed with the City in- volving the City Manager, the Municipal Court Judge, or the Police Auditor. When queried by Mayor Piercy as to the nature of the process, Ms. Ortiz envisioned a group exercise with legal input. She accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Bettman that the officers’ recommendations would come back to the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 3 Special Session Mr. Poling called for consistency in the manner in which complaints were processed. He also wanted to see timelines established for the process so employees were not left wondering their fate. He also called for flexibility in those timelines. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Piercy noted the auditor would report to the council on her work to-date as well as the work of the Civilian Review Board (CRB), and Human Resources Director, Lauren Chouinard, was working on an evaluation process for the auditor. Ms. Taylor called for more frequent reports to the council from the auditor because she thought the council needed to know what the auditor was doing. Ms. Bettman did not oppose more reports from the auditor but did not want to give the auditor “busy-work.” She was unsure how practical regular reports were and pointed out that councilors could request such reports at any time. She also suggested the council might benefit from more than one year of data. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor about the need for more reports from the auditor. He thought the council needed to do a better job in overseeing its employees. The auditor did more than collect data and the council needed to ensure it was supervising her properly to ensure she met the council’s level of expectations and to avoid such complaints and problems in the future. He recommended quarterly, if not more frequent, evaluations. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 4 Special Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 20, 2008 Noon 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 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Appointment of City Manager Assistant City Manager Scott Luell stated that this was the culmination of all of the work that had gone into the hiring process for the City Manager position. He said this motion presented the opportunity to authorize the council President to sign the final agreement with Jon Ruiz. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to authorize the Council President to sign the final employment agreement with Jon Ruiz as presented to the Mayor and City Council and to appoint Jon Ruiz as the City Manager of Eugene. Several councilors indicated they had not received the final document and copies were provided. Ms. Bettman indicated she would oppose the motion. She reiterated her feeling that Mr. Ruiz was not the best choice for the community. She said the council should not “pretend” to have unanimity on a “hotly debated decision.” Ms. Ortiz noted that she originally had not supported the hiring of Mr. Ruiz. Upon a second review, she could find “no chink in [his] armor.” She now believed that of the choices offered Mr. Ruiz had risen to the top. She related that she had talked to members of the community panel, all of whom indicated Mr. Ruiz was the best of the applicants in the pool. She indicated she would vote in favor of the motion. Ms. Taylor opposed the motion. She also did not feel Mr. Ruiz was the best choice for the City. Mr. Zelenka supported the motion. He believed that Mr. Ruiz’ engaging style was what the City needed. He noted that Mr. Ruiz had been the most progressive choice and had won overwhelming support from both the citizen panel and the staff panel. He pointed out that Mr. Ruiz also had been the only candidate to answer his question on sustainability and that Mr. Ruiz had written the sustainability plan for Fresno, California. Additionally, Mr. Ruiz had worked with an independent auditor and had a sophisticated understanding of the importance of public trust. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Clark expressed some surprise at Ms. Bettman’s staunch opposition. He recalled that he had conceded on the choice of consultant and that during the process he had wanted to move more slowly and deliberately. He remarked that for Ms. Bettman to be unhappy at this stage of the process when he had gotten the sense from her that she was interested in moving much more quickly was challenging for him to hear. Mr. Clark concurred with Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka. He had been struck by the recommendation made by the citizen panel, which had been a collaboration of people from all different sides of the political spectrum. He underscored that the panel had come together and declared that Mr. Ruiz was someone they could work with. He looked forward to working with Mr. Ruiz and believed it presented an opportunity to move “to the next level.” Mayor Piercy noted that the council had already decided to hire Mr. Ruiz. She said there had been two good candidates and one had prevailed. She was pleased with the choice and hoped that everyone would be supportive and welcoming. She had read all of the reports and background information and believed that the City could not have done any better. She underscored his ability to work collaboratively and with a diverse range of people. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 12:15 p.m. and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. B. ACTION: West Broadway Update Mr. Luell explained that this item was a follow-up to seek language for disposition of the options. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the attorney’s office had attempted to provide a methodology to comply with the motion passed which would allow tenants the right to purchase the option and, in the case no tenant was interested, that others could purchase it. He stated that it would include a provision that indicated there would be serious consequences if a building was demolished and construction on another building was not built within a “quick period” of time. He noted that Ms. Bettman had sent out an email containing questions and suggested that he respond to them for the benefit of the council. Mr. Klein said the first question was in regard to the City’s intent in terms of the cost to acquiring the options. He clarified that the intention was to cover the amount that the agency paid to secure the options, which in most cases was $5,000 to $10,000. He related that Ms. Bettman had asked what the terms ‘memo of offer’ and ‘purpose of development’ meant. He explained that the memo of offer served to provide a uniform format for bidders to use to submit something back to the City. He said the purpose of development sought to disallow someone to acquire property and “just sit on it.” He noted that there was also a provision that would allow the Agency Director to reject all of the bids, should this be the case. Mr. Klein addressed Ms. Bettman’s question regarding a scenario in which more than one tenant wished to bid on the property and one tenant then bid more to win the option. He suggested adding a provision that indicated that if only one tenant bid on the option the agency should charge the minimum amount. He underscored that the intent in providing the methodology was to meet the criterion of getting it done before the first option expired on March 15. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Continuing, Mr. Klein related that the final question was in regard to the penalty provision. He stated that if the property was demolished the code would require that before any construction was undertaken all of the according permits would have to be obtained. He said it was trickier to find an objective standard to apply for potentially penalizing someone who purchased a building and then left it vacant. Ms. Bettman appreciated the response to her questions. She thought the public benefit language should be more general, e.g., that the bid would be given on the basis of criteria including the highest bid and the City Manager could then refuse a bid on any grounds. She wanted there to be enough discretion to move forward quickly and to also take into account the public benefit. Mr. Klein suggested one thing to consider would be to add something that said the bid would go to the highest bidder subject to a determination by the agency or the City Manager that the purchase of develop- ment was consistent with the provisions set forth in the West Broadway Development Advisory Committee report. Ms. Bettman felt the recommendations in the report had been so broad that she could “not imagine that anything would not fall under” them. She suggested that the language say “the agency” as opposed to “the Agency Director.” Mr. Klein said they could certainly provide that the proposal should include the amount of the bid and an explanation of what the proposer believed the public benefits to be. 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 Urban Renewal Agency based on the methodology presented at this work session. Ms. Taylor moved to substitute a motion to direct the Agency Director to solicit offers from tenants interested in an assignment of a purchase option no being exercised by the Urban Renewal Agency based on the methodology below: ? Request for bids will be delivered to tenants of a building covered by an option. ? Minimum bid will be established at the total of the Urban Renewal Agency’s option money payment(s). ? Only tenants may submit bids. If multiple tenants of a building submit bids, then the tenant submitting the highest bid will be awarded the assignment. ? If no tenant submits a bid, then the option will expire. ? A “memo of offer” or form will be created by the Urban Renewal Agency to be used by bidders to submit their bids. The offer will include a bid amount and de- scription of the delivery of cash. ? Offers will be accepted up to a deadline, and the bids will be opened publicly. ? Agency Director will review the bids, and provide notice to highest bidder within a specific time period. Successful bidder will need to deliver cash and sign a “memo of intention: within a specific time period. ? Final decision will be made by the Agency Director based on highest bid. ? If a building is demolished, new construction must being within 6 months of demo- lition. ? If construction does not begin within 6 months, the owner will pay to the Urban Renewal Agency an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase price for every 6 month period in which there is no new construction. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor thought only the current tenants of the buildings should be offered the options. She did not want people to be put out of their places of business. She said her intent was that the tenant would have the option until the option ran out and then the “free market” would take over. Ms. Bettman provided a second. Mr. Clark indicated he would oppose the substitute motion because he was interested in seeing the City get its money back. He wanted the City to be financially whole. He understood the desire to avoid putting existing businesses out, but was willing to let the market address it. Mr. Pryor observed that the principal difference between the methodology that was being proposed and Ms. Taylor’s substitute methodology lay in who could submit bids and what would happen if their bids were not awarded. He felt this was too prescriptive. He wanted the options to result in downtown development and did not oppose the tenants purchasing their buildings. He did not feel restricting the bids to only the current tenants would be in the City’s best interest. He did support giving the tenants the first right of refusal. Ms. Ortiz asked if there were programs to help people purchase the buildings. Denny Braud, Senior Management Analyst for the Community Development Division, responded that there were two different programs that could be utilized. Mr. Poling wanted to see the City recoup the money spent on options. He asked if six months was a reasonable amount of time within which to expect development to occur. Mr. Braud replied that he thought it was. He noted that razing a building was part of construction, as it usually did not occur before construction was planned and permitted. Mr. Zelenka said he would oppose the substitute motion because he believed it was too restrictive. He expressed concern that if it was known that the tenant would have the first right of refusal it could preempt an interested party from wanting to take the time to put in a bid. He wondered if it would be possible to ask for a notice of intent from the tenants. Mr. Klein responded that legally it was possible but practically there might not be enough time to follow this procedure for the options slated to expire in March. Mayor Piercy noted the time and asked the council to consider deferring Item C, a work session on the Rental Housing Code Update. The council was amenable to deferring the item as it was not time sensitive. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Braud replied that the City had invested approximately $200,000 in options. Ms. Bettman ascertained that this was money that could be utilized to help the development to occur. She questioned why the deadline for the options was the same given that several options expired in March but the rest expired later in the year. She stated her intention to oppose the substitute motion. Ms. Taylor averred that it was more important to help the local businesses than it was to get the money back. The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mr. Pryor asked if bifurcating the options would affect what the City was attempting to do. Mr. Klein replied that it would not create legal problems, but it would create a different standard for different options. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Braud added that it was more efficient to do one process and it would also provide some certainty to property owners. He thought it might give the same advantages to everyone. Ms. Bettman thought the uncertainty would exist regardless. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion to keep the existing March timeline for the first options to expire, options 3, 7, and 11, and to provide a more generous timeline for the rest of the options. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a possibility that any of the first options to expire would be planned to be done in tandem with the second options and how having two deadlines would affect this. Mr. Braud did not foresee issues related to the implementation of two timelines. Mr. Zelenka supported the amendment. Ms. Ortiz asked if someone with money for the building they were in wanted to purchase a property with a later deadline would have to wait. Mr. Braud replied that the deadline would have to be the same for all bidders in the process. Mr. Poling asked if the remaining five properties would be done in a block. Mr. Braud affirmed that his recommendation would be to have a first process for the initial three and then a second process for the remainder. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to issue all of the options for bid but to place separate deadlines on the first three and the second five. The maker accepted the amend- ment. The amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Klein reviewed the changes, as follows: ? In the second bullet point, beginning with minimum bid, a sentence would be added that would say “agency also will consider public benefits identified by the bidder.” ? In the third bullet point, the words ‘highest bid’ will be changed to ‘best bid as determined by the agency’ with the following sentence added at the end: The best bid includes the amount of the bid and the public benefits described; if only one tenant submits a bid then the amount of the payment shall be the minimum bid. ? The fourth bullet point will state the following: If no tenant submits a bid, then the non-tenant with the “best bid” will be awarded the assignment. ? The fifth bullet point: change ‘bids’ to ‘proposals’ and add ‘public benefits and the timing of the project’ to the second sentence. ? The sixth bullet point: change ‘bids’ to ‘proposals.’ ? Revise the seventh bullet point to state the following: The Agency Director will provide the bids or proposals to the agency for its review and selection. No change to the second sentence. ? Revise the eight bullet point to state the following: Final decision will be made by the Agency based on this predetermined methodology. The Agency retains the right to reject any and all offers. Mr. Pryor stated that he would accept all of the aforementioned changes as friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to the motion as she did not support allowing non-tenants the opportunity to purchase the options before they expired. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2008 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room–City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. 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 announced that the next Mayor’s One-on-One event would occur the next day at the Rite Aid th Store at 29 Avenue and Willamette Street between the hours of 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Ms. Taylor would also be present. Mayor Piercy announced that the Eugene Parks and Open Space Division staff was accepting applications for the community gardens until March 30. Mayor Piercy noted some recent articles in The Register-Guard, one regarding repeat offenders who drove while their driving privileges were suspended, and called for more work on the issue. She also noted an article on a group of forest workers who were challenging the federal government on its application of fire retardants on the basis they were contaminating rivers and streams. Mayor Piercy also noted an article that quoted Representative Peter DeFazio expressing concern about the lack of federal dollars to repair local roads and calling for attention to the basic infrastructure needs of the country. Mr. Pryor reported that Ms. Ortiz had been elected his successor as chair of the Human Services Commis- sion (HSC). He characterized the HSC budget being proposed for the next fiscal year as devastating, and said the size of the reductions anticipated if the Secure Rural Schools and Safer Community Self- Determination Act revenues were not renewed would be particularly devastating to human services funding in Lane County. He suggested that the Eugene and Springfield councils should discuss the degree to which those jurisdictions would be prepared to shoulder the burden of providing support to the residents of Lane County when they began to lose services as a result of the reductions. He emphasized it was not the County’s problem, but the residents of Lane County’s problem. Mr. Clark said he attended the most recent meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, at which members had a similar discussion about the Lane County public safety budget outlook. The public safety implications of the anticipated revenue reductions were equally MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 1 Work Session devastating, and he advocated for a discussion of what happened to Eugene citizens when County-funded services went away, and about the City’s appropriate role. Mr. Clark said he attended the recent Fire and EMS Awards ceremony on February 24, and found it inspirational, particularly in regard to the stories of the innovation approaches the department was taking to service provision. Mr. Clark said he attended the February 24 meeting of the Cal Young neighborhood organization and was happy to see Floyd Zimmer, a resident who had worked for a long time on behalf of the neighborhood, be elected president. Mr. Clark reported that he had attended the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce’s recent Economic Forecast, which he found interesting. Mr. Clark said he attended the River Road Community Celebration on February 9 with his children and was glad to see Mayor Piercy and Ms. Ortiz in attendance. Mr. Clark reported he was attending the Police Operations Academy in his position as a council representa- tive to the Police Commission. Mr. Clark invited residents to a community dialogue on March 6 at 10 a.m. at Dani’s Coffee and Espresso at Santa Clara Square sponsored by himself and Lane County Commissioner Bill Fleenor. Ms. Taylor requested legal counsel as to whether the City could waive the assessments for road improve- ments for residents affected by the Crest Drive area street improvement project. She also asked about potential adjustments for those with long frontages but narrow lots. Ms. Taylor said she was hearing about potholes from her constituents, and was also hearing a desire to save Civic Stadium from redevelopment. She thought the City of Eugene should do whatever it could to aid in that effort. Ms. Taylor said she also heard from those wanting a park across from the Eugene Library and hoped that could be included in any Request for Proposals issued for the site. She said that commercial and residential development was stimulated by such parks. Ms. Taylor reported that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations had completed its review of legislative proposals made in the recent legislative special session and would begin to revise the legislative policies when it met again later in the year. She also invited suggestions for legislation the City should introduce in the next session. Mr. Zelenka said that the University of Oregon basketball arena was a major issue in his neighborhood and the legislature had recently approved the bonds to pay for it. He anticipated the neighborhood would ask the City to apply the conditional use permit process in its review of the proposal. Mr. Zelenka said he attended a recent Birth-to-Three fundraiser on February 23 that raised more than $80,000, which was fantastic for the families served. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said the Metropolitan Policy Committee continued to work on transportation planning and local criteria for the selection and prioritization of projects. The committee was also investigating having its meetings televised. Ms. Ortiz said she was happy to have been elected chair the HSC, which was an important committee to the community. She said the HSC was provided with statistics about Project Homeless Connect, which confirmed her perception that many of the volunteers involved were ordinary people. Many personal connections had been made at the event, which she found very heart-warming. Ms. Ortiz recalled the recent Joint Elected Officials meeting and said she was glad all councilors were able to be present. She anticipated a bumpy future given the County’s lack of Road Fund dollars in addition to its budget woes, but believed it was a positive thing for the elected officials to talk to each other about community values. She thought more such opportunities should be created. Ms. Ortiz said she had been invited to a presentation at the new River Bend campus which was hosted by her boss, Mel Prine. Mr. Prine had shared the hospital’s vision of the future of its site with local elected officials. That vision included low-income housing. Mayor Piercy said that Commissioner Faye Stewart had committed to speaking to the council about the impacts of the loss of the Secure Rural Schools money, and she thought that an opportunity to begin the discussion mentioned by councilors in their remarks. She suggested the council should consider developing an emergency plan to respond to the gaps in service that would exist when those dollars were no longer available. Ms. Ortiz noted that Council Bonny Bettman was absent on a medical mission to Ecuador. Mayor Piercy welcomed City Manager pro tem Angel Jones back from her recent illness. City Manager pro tem Jones reported that Beth Forrest had accepted the position of Council Coordinator. Ms. Forrest had been serving in the position on an interim basis. City Manager pro tem Jones welcomed Ms. Forrest. B. WORK SESSION Sustainability Initiative Update Mayor Piercy welcomed members of the Sustainability Commission who were present for the item. Sustainability Manager Felicity Fahey joined the council for the item. Ms. Fahy introduced Will Shaver and Tim Laue, chair and vice chair of the Sustainability Commission. Ms. Fahy provided an update on the Sustainability Initiative, noting the establishment of the commission in 2007. She said it had been highlighted to her that the City needed to focus more on the role of social equity, and she suggested there was “a great deal of capacity’ to broaden the discussion and include the three aspects of sustainability in everything the City did. Ms. Fahy believed the City could play a role in bringing the many players who had a role in sustainability together and noted the interest being expressed by other communities in the work the City was doing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Fahy reviewed the work that she and the commission had done to date and forecasted the activities of the Sustainability Commission for the upcoming year. Mr. Shaver discussed the commission’s meetings, noting the high level of public involvement and the sense of urgency expressed by both the commission and community at large regarding social and environmental issues that the initiative was trying to address. The commission was working on its work plan and would hold a work plan retreat later that week. The council would receive the work plan later in the year. He said there was a wide array of topics for the commission to consider. Mr. Shaver noted commission members present: Josh Bruce, Shawn Boles, Dave Funk, Howie Bonnett, and Brian Erickson, and reminded the council that Mr. Zelenka served as its representative on the commission. Mr. Laue reported the commission had developed its mission statement. He shared the mission statement: The Sustainability Commission works to create a healthy community now and in the future by proposing measurable solutions to pressing environmental, social and economic concerns to the City of Eugene, its partners, and its people. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the work of the commission and said that much had been accomplished in the time since Ms. Fahey joined the organization. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mayor Piercy asked if the Lane County Homebuilders Association had been asked to participate in the conference the City was co-sponsoring. Ms. Fahey indicated she would follow up on the question. Mayor Piercy expressed strong support for the sense of urgency felt by the commission, because everything she heard indicated much more needed to be done in a short time frame. Anything Eugene could do locally seemed important to her. Mayor Piercy said as she was reading the initiative action plan, she recalled former councilor Gary Papé’s commitment to green building policy and moving us toward the LEED standard. She did not want to lose sight of that. Mayor Piercy recommended the council use the City’s sustainability policies as a filter for all that it did to ensure that it was going in the right direction with its activities. Ms. Ortiz thanked all the commissioners present. She said according to Popular Science magazine’s rankings, Eugene had done well in regard to sustainability-related issues. While the community could challenge itself in many areas, she thought the community should know that it was doing well. Ms. Ortiz emphasized that being green was much more comprehensive than recycling. Ms. Ortiz noted the nomination of Eugene resident Lorraine Kerwood of NextSteps Recyling, a home-grown nonprofit, for the Volvo for Life Award, and said that demonstrated one person could make a difference. Mr. Pryor thanked the Sustainability Commission and Ms. Fahy for the work they had done. He said that Eugene could not be excellent and green unless it backed that commitment up with willingness and resources, and he thought the commission demonstrated the City’s commitment. He liked that sustainability was a trend that the nation and planet was moving toward. People did not have to be convinced that green MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 4 Work Session was good. The commission was a resource for those who were seeking to be more “green” and could provide them with the assistance they needed to achieve that goal. He said the commission could provide residents with practices and incentives to move the City from word to the deed. Mr. Zelenka commended the commissioners and said it was a pleasure working with them. He also commended Ms. Fahy for her staff work. He said the commission was now moving into the substance of its work, and wanted to get going to respond to the urgency both the members and the public felt to place Eugene on the forefront of what he anticipated was a huge social, environmental, and economic movement. Mr. Zelenka noted that Ms. Kerwood was a finalist for the Volvo award and as a finalist had already received $25,000 to donate to her favorite charity, which was Next Steps Recycling. If Ms. Kerwood won the award, she would receive another $125,000 and a Volvo for life. Mayor Piercy said that Ms. Kerwood was a good example of the ‘triple bottom line.’ She recycled every element of computer equipment and employed people at a living wage to do that work. Mayor Piercy spoke to the subject of partnerships in the broader community, noting a recent meeting of local government agencies convened by University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer to talk about what those agencies could accomplish together in regard to sustainability. She thought the recognition the City received in Popular Science magazine was largely due to the work of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She noted the recent international recognition LTD had received for its EmX system. Such things worked together to help the community reduce its carbon emissions. Ms. Solomon noted that Ms. Kerwood was the guest speaker at the February 28 meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens on February 28 at Petersen Barn. Ms. Solomon suggested it made sense to give EWEB a seat on the Sustainability Commission given its contribution to Eugene’s green image. Ms. Fahy indicated that EWEB had committed to send a non-voting liaison to commission meetings. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mayor Piercy’s remarks about using sustainability as a filter for council decisions. She asked how a living wage ordinance fit into the commission’s work. Ms. Taylor was encouraged by the good people who served on the commission, and was optimistic about what would come out of the work of the commission. She hoped that the City did not focus on taking credit for achievements and on how good it was but on what it was doing. Mr. Clark also thanked the commission for the hard work it did. He supported the commission’s vision and goals and thought it was doing a good job of quantifying how the City could be more sustainable. Mr. Clark agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon in regard to a position for EWEB on the commission. Mayor Piercy suggested the ordinance establishing the Sustainability Commission would need to be amended for EWEB to participate on the commission. Mayor Piercy agreed that Eugene should not just take credit for its success and needed to show action, not just talk, but she suggested that such successes gave people the motivation to keep going. She did not think such praise for just “praise for praise’s sake,” but acted as a building block to help people move forward. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Laue spoke to the concept of the triple bottom line—economic, social, and environmental—and said that those were very large topics. He said the commission had discussed the need to measure its progress on its work plan in definable ways; there was no way to do that without partnerships with the community and City organization. Mr. Laue said that while sustainability seemed to be a relatively new concept to some, the City of Eugene had been working on many sustainability practices for a long time, and he said it should receive credit for the work it had done long before sustainability became the “issue du jour.” He emphasized that the topic was huge and recommended the council pay close attention to what the commission did and remember it could not do it all but wanted to do what it could well. Mr. Shaver invited the council’s input in the future. B. WORK SESSION Railroad Quiet Zone Tom Larsen, Public Works Transportation, provided the staff report, reminding the council of past work sessions about the topic, where staff was directed by the council to monitor the train crossing situation in the central area and investigate the success of other quiet zones. Subsequently, staff learned of the availability of some federal funding in the form of Section 130 dollars, safety money administered the by State. In order to qualify for those dollars, crossings must be closed, with a focus on redundant crossings. The federal government indicated that the six crossings in six blocks likely constituted redundant crossings. He said that the council had a policy against closing streets and the council directed staff to solicit public input on the topic. Mr. Larson emphasized it was possible to have a quiet zone without any street closures. The closures could vary in cost from $25,000 to $400,000; many crossings were not appropriate for the lower cost supplemen- tal safety measures. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the railroad strongly supported closures but there was limited funding. He said that closing at least one closures helped in regard to the negotiations and diagnostic process. Rob Inerfeld of Public Works Transportation overviewed the community outreach done in regard to the topic. He reported there was strong residential support for quiet zones, while businesses were supportive or noncommittal. People favored quiet zones with no street closures but a majority of those who attended expressed support for one street closure. Staff had recommended that street be Madison Street. Mr. Larson called attention to information in the AIS regarding costs, noting the single street closure was reflected in Table 1. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Ortiz commended the staff work but found none of the staff-prepared motions sufficient. She noted that a group of people had been identified to serve on a Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) charged to work on railroad-related issues and she thought the topic was one of the topics that groups should be assessing. Ms. Ortiz noted the council’s receipt of an e-mail message from resident Brian Obie, who had suggested the City, through the United Front effort, request federal money to underwrite the costs of a quiet zone. She endorsed Mr. Obie’s suggestion. She thought Mr. Obie was correct and given his huge investment in the community, the City could, on its part, work to get a quiet zone, which affected his business. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said the Whiteaker Community Council took a position that, while it did not prefer street closures, affected residents should not have to pay for it. Mr. Larson said the City had not decided on a local improvement district, although it had been discussed. He noted there were quiet zones based on a downtown business tax and on revenue bonds; it was up to the community to decide how to pay for it. Ms. Ortiz did not want to see the neighbors assessed for the street closures given that all residents would benefit from the quiet zone. Mr. Clark said if pushed, he would accept the manager’s recommendations, but he too was not satisfied with any of the options. He supported a quiet zone in concept but pointed out that whistles were designed to keep people safe at the crossings. He noted that Coos Bay was considering facility improvements that could substantially increase rail traffic going through Eugene, further increasing the opportunities for accidents at railroad crossings. He had some concerns about creating a quiet zone in advance of that because it could create safety challenges for the City. Mr. Clark said that $1.4 million for a quiet zone was quite a bit of money given the City’s budgetary challenges. While he would like to support the zone, he would have to say, “not at the moment, but we’ll keep working on it.” He agreed that the City should look to its federal representatives for assistance. He did not favor placing the item in the budget right now. Mr. Pryor said in principle he supported such a zone as residents wanted it. However, Mr. Poling stressed, the crossings must be safe; that must be the overriding consideration. He agreed the City should seek federal funding. He pointed out that the physical improvements associated with the zone would be a one-time expenditure. He thought that fact created more opportunity if the council was willing to take it. He acknowledged the council would have to find a source of funding. Mr. Pryor confirmed with Mr. Larson that the needed improvements must be made to an entire area to achieve quiet zone status. Mr. Larson said that there were about two miles involved overall. Speaking to the issue of safety, Mr. Larson said the anticipated reduction in vehicles and the safety measures to be installed would produce a safer situation. Mr. Pryor said that safety and a quiet zone were not mutually exclusive. He wanted to keep moving forward with a quiet zone in a realistic manner. He said if the council decided on a one-time capital commitment, he believed it would need to decide what other project would be dropped. Mr. Pryor reiterated that he wanted to continue to move forward on the process. Ms. Solomon was unclear as to why the City needed a consultant to do work she thought could as easily be done by staff. She did not favor closing streets as she envisioned that would create ghetto-like qualities in the residential areas affected and harm to the businesses involved, and the other side streets nearby would be stressed by the additional load from cars avoiding the area. Ms. Solomon asked the costs of installing quad gates. Mr. Larson said that it was $400,000 to $500,000 per gate. There were likely to be associated maintenance costs of about $10,000 annually. Ms. Solomon recalled hearing at a workshop on the subject that a quiet zone did not guarantee train horns would stop. Mr. Larson concurred. He said that generally, the zone quieted only routine horns, but train engineers could still sound the train horn for a variety of safety-related reasons, including work crews, people on the tracks, and when they left the yard or station. Ms. Solomon wanted people to understand a quiet zone would only silence routine horns. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Zelenka supported the establishment of a quiet zone. He agreed that safety was the paramount issue and it appeared a quiet zone would improve safety. He did not favor the establishment of a local improve- ment district to fund the street closures. He also agreed with Ms. Solomon about the need for a consultant. He wanted the affected neighborhood to be involved with any street closures. Mr. Zelenka advocated for seeking funding through Representative DeFazio, suggesting that the cost be included on the City’s list of federal funding “asks.” Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson indicated that while the United Front priorities had been sent, an item could be added; however, federal transportation funding was appropriated in cycles, and the next appropriations would not come out until 2010. She said that the federal dollars mentioned by Mr. Larson were available only for quiet zones with 50 percent street closures, and the deadline for other federal dollars had passed. Mr. Poling agreed there was a need for a quiet zone but he was also concerned about safety issues, including the response times by police and fire, which would be affected by the closure of streets. He favored the quad gates as the best approach, even with the cost involved. He acknowledged the costs of maintaining the gates. He recommended that the City’s representatives to the United Front broach the topic with the federal delegation. Mr. Poling opposed street closures for the reasons mentioned by Ms. Solomon. City Manager pro tem Jones indicated that staff recommended a consultant be hired due to work load issues. If staff did the work involved, another work task would have to be postponed. Ms. Taylor also did not support closing streets, hiring a consultant, or forming a local improvement district to pay the costs, although she found it no more unfair here than in other situations where people were asked to pay for facilities that other people used. Ms. Taylor confirmed with Mr. Larson that the City could install one or two quad gates that would have an overall affect on safety. Mayor Piercy suggested the council needed to decisively convey its interest in the quiet zone, and recom- mended the City start the conversation with its federal delegates now even if the zone was some time away. She said the council could direct staff to work with Representative DeFazio’s Office on ways to fund a quiet zone because she was not convinced the City was aware of all the funding sources available. Mayor Piercy agreed about not closing streets for the reasons mentioned. Mayor Piercy reiterated that the council needed to contact Representative DeFazio about what it had in mind. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to continue to pursue options for creating a quiet zone as a council priority, including directing staff working with the United Front to start a conversation with Representative Peter DeFazio’s Office about funding for a quiet zone of the magnitude set forth by staff with quad gates at every cross- ing. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for the information and hoped the council considered it a priority for the sake of things like safety and downtown development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Zelenka supported the motion. At his request, Mr. Larson described a quad gate. Mr. Zelenka asked if the railroads and ODOT supported quiet zones. Mr. Larson said that ODOT was generally neutral, and the railroads tended to believe there was an increase in their liability because of their experience in Florida. The railroads had tended to be against such zones. The railroads were more comfortable with the risks they were familiar with. Mr. Zelenka perceived a railroad quiet zone as a quality of life issue for residents and endorsed the mayor’s recommendations regarding initiating the conversation with Representative DeFazio. Mr. Pryor supported the motion because he thought it demonstrated the council’s commitment to such a zone while providing it with a level of flexibility. He thought the council needed to embark on the discussion now. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor. He indicated, for the purpose of legislative intent, the purpose of the motion was to get the “ask” in line and begin a conversation, but not for the item to jump up in priority over other United Front priorities. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the maintenance costs of quad gates, and noted that she personally liked hearing the sound of train whistles. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. City Manager pro tem Jones confirmed that the council was directing the staff to begin the discussion about funding, but no other work would occur. Ms. Ortiz recommended that staff consider returning at later time with a proposal that included a consultant if that was considered necessary for work load reasons. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 9 Work Session