Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 28, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2007, Work Session, January 14, 2008, Work Session, January 16, 2008, Work Session, January 23, 2008, Work Session, March 10, 2008, Work Session, and March 10, 2008, Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS A.December 10, 2007, Work Session B.January 14, 2008, Work Session C.January 16, 2008, Work Session D.January 23, 2008, Work Session E.March 10, 2008, Work Session F.March 10, 2008, Public Hearing 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\M080428\S0804282A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 10, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. As Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy had not yet arrived, Council President Andrea Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND MANAGER Mr. Poling said he sent the council an e-mail regarding some recommendations to the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Commissioners from the neighborhood association leadership and soliciting input. He had intended to place a motion on the table but had yet to hear from any other councilor and would postpone that action. He asked that a poll be sent to the council for a work session on the item. Mr. Poling anticipated the neighborhood association leadership would offer input on the recommendations at the later regular meeting. Mr. Poling extended his congratulations to the Sheldon High School football team, coaches, and parents for the team’s OSAA Division 6A championship win; to the Marist High School football team, coaches, and parents for the Class 4A championship win; and to the Marcola High School football team, coaches, and parents for that school’s IA championship. Mr. Poling reported that he took his family to Willamette Repertory Theater’s production of A Christmas Carol production at the Soreng Theater and it was a wonderful experience. He commended the quality of the local arts scene and recommended that all residents enjoy a production at the Hult Center. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could legally charge a tax on studded tires. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said she would follow up. Mayor Piercy arrived. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the background material provided about the library reserve and said she would continue to research the issue. She said the staff response to her question about the facility reserve was not clear as to what departments contributed to the General Fund Reserve and she requested follow-up as to the percentage breakdown. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked why the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) was to be convened if the recommendation the council was offered was to use the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 108 money. City Manager pro tem Jones indicated City Attorney Glenn Klein would respond to that later in the meeting. It was her understanding the URA must be convened. Mr. Clark congratulated the staff, coaches, and players of the successful football teams. Mr. Clark thanked Representative Chris Edwards for attending a recent Santa Clara neighborhood meeting with him. Mr. Zelenka said he attended a Lane Workforce Partnership meeting the previous week and noted his request to the council to sign a letter asking the Oregon Delegation to support the Work Force Reinvestment Act. He thanked the council for signing the letter, and shared statistics demonstrating the need for the agency and its success. Mr. Zelenka announced an upcoming job faire February 12 and March 13 at the Lane County Fairgrounds. Mr. Zelenka announced the Sustainability Commission had its first meeting and he commended the quality of its members. He said the next meeting was December 18 at 5:30 p.m. He noted that a company owned by Commissioner Josh Skov was recently profiled in The Register-Guard. Mr. Zelenka said the University of Oregon’s arena scoping process had begun in earnest and the university was working with the affected neighborhood groups. He planned to follow the process closely. Mr. Zelenka noted Police Auditor Cris Beamud’s recent talk before the City Club. Mr. Zelenka recognized outgoing County Administrator Bill Van Vactor for his many years of service. Mr. Pryor said that Lane County agreed to contribute $40,000 to the West Eugene Collaborative and Commissioner Peter Sorenson would join the group. Ms. Solomon arrived. ththth Mr. Pryor reported on his participation in a bus tour of EMX corridor options, which included 6, 7, 13, th and 11 avenues. He said the tour was very useful. He anticipated more work to come as there were pros and cons to each corridor. He encouraged councilors to contact Lane Transit District for similar tours. Ms. Ortiz also recognized Sheldon High School’s State championship and noted it occurred under Coach Marty Johnson, formerly of Willamette High School. Ms. Ortiz thanked Linda Dawson for the information she provided to her regarding condominium conver- sions and manufactured dwellings. Ms. Ortiz said she attended the Mayor’s Summit on Over-representation of Minority Youth in the Justice System in Portland recently and heard from a panel of youth who had been in the system and come out to be productive citizens. She had been unable to stay for the Governor’s remarks because she had attended a presentation by Enrique Morenos, founder of the Border Angels. She had been very impressed with his remarks and said a local email group to support him had been started. She offered to share more informa- tion with interested councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz thanked Downtown Eugene, Inc., Director Russ Brink, for forwarding the DEI report to the council. Ms. Ortiz reported on a recent meeting she had with Jim Lockhart, Director of the River Road Park and Recreation District, who shared his concerns about the impact of annexation on the district. The district received $100,000 annually from Eugene but would be out of money in four years. She suggested that the City consider what its plans were for the district and service to that community. She thought the council needed a long-term plan. She said the district would like more money but she had not been able to promise Mr. Lockhart anything. Mayor Piercy thanked Ms. Ortiz for convening the meeting, saying she had been in Kingsborough to speak with Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and others on local responses to climate change and sustainability. Ms. Solomon reported on a meeting she attended with representatives of the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services put together by Stephanie Jennings of the Planning and Development Department. The State shared information about what it was doing and State representatives had been very interested in hearing about what local providers were doing and she appreciated the outreach and desire to strengthen relationships. On behalf of the Housing Policy Board, Ms. Solomon asked if the council would be represented on the Planning Commission subcommittees on infill standards and opportunity siting. Ms. Muir indicated the HPB was represented. Ms. Muir said no councilors were involved. Ms. Solomon asked if the council had been excluded from those groups. Ms. Muir indicated she would provide the council with more background on the topic. B. WORK SESSION: Tax Levy for Funding of Pavement Capital Preservation Projects Public Works Director Kurt Corey joined the council for the item. He recalled the council subcommittee process and the subcommittee’s resulting recommendations to the council. He said the work session was focused on the potential of a capital local option levy, which was a subcommittee recommendation. Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Property Tax Option for Pavement Capital Preservation Funding. She reviewed the staff recommendation, which was for a general obligation (GO) bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capital preservation projects over ten years, to be prepared for the November 2008 ballot. She invited questions. Ms. Ortiz asked about the time frame for a gas tax referral. Mr. Corey indicated two cents of the five cent local gas tax sunsetted in February; staff understood the council did not want the tax to sunset and staff had scheduled a public hearing on an ordinance that would extend the sunset or end it. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that opponents of the ordinance had 30 days to refer it, which would not allow it to be referred in time for the May 2008 ballot. Mr. Pryor was intrigued by the concept and pleased staff had come up with something outside the Measure 5 limits. He asked if staff recommended an inflation rate of five percent due to anticipated increases in construction costs at a rate higher than general inflation. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated staff selected that rate MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 3 Work Session because it matched what staff projected as an increase in property values over the next few years and because it was close to the asphalt inflation range over the last few years. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of being able to specify projects that every resident could picture and evaluate. He asked what project development activities were involved and what impact those activities would have on the bond in regard to paving. Mr. Corey said people believed that as revenues came in repairs could be readily made, but because of the condition of the Eugene street network there was a value to be gained by upfront testing that allowed the City to identify streets for rehabilitation that staff previously thought must be reconstructed. Other project development costs were those engineering costs that went into prioritizing that work when it would do the most good. Other activities included coordination with utility providers and other stakeholders. Mr. Pryor asked what percentage of the bond that represented. Mr. Corey did not want to speculate, but thought the amount involved would be nominal. Mayor Piercy said she understood some projects benefited everyone but she questioned if there was some way to “spread it out” so that all residents felt as though they benefited. Mr. Corey said that was the way it worked out given the general disrepair across the network. Ms. Taylor liked the short-term GO bonds. She asked if references to flexibility regarded the projects themselves or how the money was used. Mr. Corey said in this context, it met not locking the City into a specific set of projects but to use the pavement management system to prioritize projects. Ms. Taylor asked if some cities used bond measures to pay for street reconstruction. Mr. Corey said yes. Ms. Taylor hoped the City considered that in the future as it was difficult for some residents to pay street assessments. Ms. Taylor asked why staff suggested the November 2008 ballot instead of May 2008. City Manager pro tem Jones attributed the recommendation to concern about the competition with other measures and the need for sufficient time to get educational information out to the public. She acknowledged that would postpone the receipt of any revenues for six months but she thought it worth the risk as it would result in a better campaign. Ms. Taylor was unsure if she agreed. Mr. Poling liked the idea of a high-priority project list. He asked if changes in priorities would require action on the council’s part. Mr. Corey said that implementation of the program would be generally done by staff with a report back to the council during the budget review process. Mr. Poling supported placing an item on the November ballot 2008 because of the double-majority issue and because it gave the council time to build public confidence. Mr. Poling asked what Eugene was spending on bicycle paths and path preservation. Mr. Corey indicated it was what the City could get through grants and other resources; there was no dedicated funding source. The local and State tax was constitutionally limited in that regard. Mr. Poling thought it important for the public to know that. Mr. Poling indicated he would support the motion prepared by staff as it merely started the process. He was not approving anything but additional work to be brought back to the council. Mr. Zelenka informed Mr. Poling that the council subcommittee recommended funding for bicycle paths because there was little or no money in the budget for bicycle path preservation and the City had an “amazing, nationally recognized” bicycle system plus the council had the goal of getting people out of their cars and onto bicycles. It made sense to have dedicated funding for that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka also liked the short-term GO bonds. He said the interest for long-term bonds was very expensive in comparison. He also liked the project priority list and the concept of flexibility as long as the council was clear that all the money would be spent on roads and bicycle paths and nothing else. He agreed that a priority list could show citizens how the money would be spent and how it would be used in their part of the city. He thought every ward would benefit. He liked the November election date for the reasons mentioned by City Manager pro tem Jones. He acknowledged the expense would go up but the council would not need to get a double-majority to pass the measure. He said that May was too soon, and if the council was not prepared it should not go to the voters. Ms. Bettman was surprised that speakers had not supported a May 2008 election date. She asked how many May primaries had lacked a 50 percent voter turnout in the last few years. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated staff had researched the two presidential primaries that happened since Measure 50 passed and the turnout had been well above 50 percent. Ms. Bettman did not think voter turnout was an issue. Ms. Bettman said that those who wanted to postpone the item were also saying their constituents found it a high priority. She observed that since the “Working City” video regarding the topic had been created it had been played over and over again, elevating the issue in the public’s awareness. People driving down West th 18 realized there was a problem. She said that if a GO bond measure failed in May the council would then have time for a Plan B, which would be difficult if the election occurred in November. She suggested the council might need to fix the problem using the Facilities Reserve. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the amount of money involved and said she would need more information before she could support flexibility. She wanted the bond to be project-specific with a percentage built in for flexibility. She said the revenues must be dedicated strictly to preservation. In regard to capital preservation of the bicycle paths, she understood that was $300,000 yearly for off-street paths alone. Ms. Solomon also supported the staff recommendation for short-term GO bonds. She said she got somewhat frustrated when staff included project development costs. She said that the council had been discussing the issue for years and she was sure that the City must know what the pavement conditions were. She interpreted project development costs as administrative overhead and was seeking information on curb- to-curb work. Ms. Solomon indicated her concurrence with Ms. Bettman about the May 2008 election date. She did not think the voters needed any more education on the issue. She thought The Register-Guard had done some good articles on it and people drove on the roads every day. Ms. Solomon said that she would ask the Budget Committee to make a larger allocation from the General Fund to the problem to both address the problem and build City credibility. Mr. Clark said that he would also ask the Budget Committee to place some General Fund money toward the preservation and maintenance deficit. He was happy to see the staff recommendation come out and concurred with the staff recommendation for a November 2008 election. Mr. Clark also concurred with putting off the City hall issue. He supported a November election because he thought the council had some trust to build with voters, and the proposal before the council was only part of the package; the council needed a thorough plan the voters could support after the council rebuilt their trust by showing some dedication to their priorities. He did not think the council could get that work done by May 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor agreed with other councilors in regard to the project list, flexibility, and the need to manage project costs. He asked if staff was aware what items would be on the ballot. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated that School District 4J and Lane Community College were considering measures for the November 2008 ballot. That could change. Mr. Pryor said he reviewed data from Lane County Elections and found Eugene had done very well in achieving a 50 percent turnout. He was unsure that would be a problem. He was cognizant of the need to take time and process the issue although he wished to proceed more quickly. He suggested that one could have it fast, right, or cheap, pick any two; he could go either way, but if staff believed November was better he was reluctantly willing to wait that long. Ms. Bettman said she was not afraid to let the voters decide. She advocated for giving the public clear and specific information and ensuring that the council could deliver what it promised. She thought the council needed to know sooner than later what the public wanted. She said all the work had been done and the council knew what projects were “out there.” Ms. Bettman did not favor a November ballot measure that competed with important school funding measures. There were no other money measures on the May ballot. She would not support a November election date. She also wanted the council to see the ballot language before it reached the point it had to be challenged. Ms. Bettman said that many communities were moving toward concrete rather than asphalt because of the high costs of concrete. When the subcommittee brought that up, staff did not want to take that approach. She asked for more information. Mr. Corey said the vast majority of the network was asphalt and replacing it with concrete was not cost-effective as it essentially constituted street reconstruction. He said that some cities had good cost experiences with concrete but he did not know if that would continue. In either case, a natural resource was involved, and cost and design life were also factors. To the extent the City was attempting to preserve asphalt streets, he thought it an apples and oranges mix. Ms. Bettman said that could be true in regard to the preservation of asphalt but the City could transition to concrete for new roads and reconstruction. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s remarks regarding a transition to concrete. She did not think public confidence would be boosted by a six-month delay. Mr. Zelenka said his concern about a May ballot was less related to the double majority issue than to how organized a support campaign could be. He noted that south Eugene had largely supported the gas tax while other wards had not. He asked how the council could get more “yes” votes in those wards so a measure passed, and what would be different this time. He suggested the more time the council had to build support, the more likely it was a measure would pass in wards that did not favor the gas tax. Mr. Pryor thought it possible to put a campaign together for a May 2008 election. He suggested that if the council decided on a May election, it would be the clear choice as the only measure. He thought such a measure would be more supported than a gas tax. Waiting for a November election meant the council could be in competition with the schools. He agreed that it was a short time line and challenged the council to get behind a measure. City Manager pro tem Jones spoke to the timing issue, saying that staff recommended a November election for the purpose of public education and because she would like to see the council take consensus action and MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 6 Work Session not split the vote. She thought it would send a strong message if the council was unanimous, no matter the date selected. Mr. Clark concurred with City Manager pro tem Jones. He said the council’s ability to work together was important to his constituents. He said his constituents did not think the City spent its money well, and he thought the council needed to demonstrate it could spend money on items of high priority to the community, such as fixing the streets, before it sought more tax money. He received many e-mails, phone calls, and “comments on the street” that the council had enough money to fix those high-priority items first. He thought the upcoming budget process was an opportunity for the council to show it could do so, and then it could ask the voters for more assistance in November. Ms. Ortiz thought it important the council demonstrate it could work together as a group. She said her constituents wanted housing and family wage jobs from the council. She said her constituents work for $7 and $8 an hour and wanted to know what the City was going to do about those issues. Ms. Ortiz said that people do not like to ask for help; they wanted work. Ms. Solomon asked if Mr. Corey was aware of the Elmira-Maple reconstruction project. Mr. Corey said yes. Ms. Solomon said at this point it was being considered as a local improvement district (LID), and asked if it could be added to the project list. She could not ask the Elmira-Maple residents to vote for such a measure if they were going to pay a LID for their improvements and be asked to contribute more. Mr. Corey suggested that was a separate policy issue from the backlog of maintenance. There was also a large backlog of unimproved streets and the City had yet to discuss underwriting the costs of what would normally be assessed to property owners. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring a proposal to a future council work session for a GO bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capi- tal preservation projects over 10 years within an appropriate timeframe to place the ques- tion on the May 2008 ballot. The proposal should include ballot measure language that provides for both a list of high-priority pavement capital preservation projects and appro- priate flexibility for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservation project priorities. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute the May 2008 election date with the November 2008 election date. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting yes. Ms. Bettman supported the motion but wanted to make it clear to staff that the ballot language should state the new revenue from such a bond would not displace any revenue now dedicated to maintenance and preservation, the measure was project-specific, and people would clearly understand the percentages incorporated into the flexibility element. Ms. Ortiz accepted that as a friendly amendment, which staff would incorporate into a future motion. Mr. Zelenka asked when a gas tax sunset repeal vote would occur if the petroleum owners were successful in their referral. Mr. Corey said that would occur in September 2008. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Clark voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 7 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Project City Manager pro tem Jones called the council’s attention to the motion postponed from the November 27, 2007, meeting. I move to direct the City Manager/Agency Director to bring back to the council/Urban Renewal Agency (URA) for consideration at the December 10, 2007, work session a proposal(s) that is consistent with provisions of Option 2 offered by staff/Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) at the April 25, 2007, council work session as follows; Option 2 engaged Beam to pro- ceed with “renovation of the Centre Court building and the Washburn building and a yet-to-be- defined level of new construction on on the adjacent vacant land.” (The adjacent vacant land be- ing the Aster Pit.) And, includes that the council/URA “would also continue to move forward with th the TK Partners project as previously selected on the 10 and Charnelton request for proposals process.” (Consisting of 106 “homes” on the Sears Pit site.) This motion assumes a proposal(s) coming back to the council will define the use and intensity for the Aster Pit development; and maintain Beam and Kemper as separate entities. Mayor Piercy called the meeting of the URA to order. Ms. Bettman asked why a meeting of the URA was needed given that the work session was not about a URA financing issue. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the URA held the options on the property, requiring the council to act as the agency at some point. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department, clarified that the model included in the packet was not the only financial structure, just a model to demonstrate how the moneys could be used to impact the Beam project. Mr. Zelenka asked who determined how the Community Development Block Grant money was spent. City Attorney Klein said when the council decided what it wanted to do, staff would return with the actions necessary for either the URA or the council to take. Ms. Bettman offered the following modification to the motion on the table: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to modify the motion on the table to direct the City Manager to pursue a development agreement for the Beam development project as selected in the West Broadway Request for Qualifications to renovate the Centre Court Building and the Washburn Building and with a defined development proposal for the adja- cent Aster Pit. The City will proceed with acquisition or assignment of the options on all three of the aforementioned properties and within the financial constraints of the current $33 million urban renewal district spending limit. Also, return with a draft development agreement, including the City’s financial participation, acquisition, and/or transfer of prop- erty, mix of uses, density, design, and timeline for projects no later than February 11, 2008, and also proceed with acquisition of the Diamond property and return to the council with th draft Request for Proposal options for the 10 and Charnelton site also within the existing financial constraints of the urban renewal district spending limit. Ms. Solomon noted that Beam had sent a letter to the City received earlier that day that indicated a need for more than 90 days’ time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked that the motion be considered as two separate motions. Ms. Bettman had no objection, and she and Ms. Taylor accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Bettman said that staff received notice from Beam it needed more time to secure tenants, and staff only received that letter that afternoon. That issue was beyond staff’s control. She believed the time frame was largely dependent on the developer. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager pro tem Jones indicated the developer wanted 90 days from the time the options expired. Ms. Bettman suggested that could be negotiated within the parameters of the motion. City Manager pro tem Jones pointed out the City could not meet the time frame for the development agreement because Beam would be unable to respond by that date. Mr. Braud said that would give the City only 45 days to negotiate an agreement, which was very difficult. Mr. Poling recalled that the council had discussed the properties north of Broadway because of their location at a major intersection. He asked staff to prepare text to include consideration of the acquisition of the properties identified as Roberts, Taco Time, and the Scan Design. City Attorney Klein indicated that at this point, the Beam-related part of the motion was on the table, and he suggested that Mr. Poling offer a motion after the two motions had been dealt with. Mr. Clark said approval of the motion meant Eugene would buy the buildings without knowing if it had a developer in place. City Manager pro tem Jones suggested that the City could negotiate option extensions rather than purchase the properties. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, that the City was negotiating with the only property owner on the Beam project. Mr. Zelenka said he had supported the ballot measure because it included a lot of housing and development patterns that would have transformed the downtown area. Now he did not think the City would see housing downtown for many years and the downtown area would probably look the same in five years as it does today. The City would be unlikely to see any private investment in that area in the near-term or housing that it did not subsidize. Now the City was talking about heavily subsidizing a single office building with one tenant. He questioned whether that was in the public’s interest but he suspected his ward, which supported the more comprehensive ballot measure, would support the lesser project as well. He thought the project was “pretty speculative” but had confidence in Beam because of the company’s past projects. Mr. Zelenka favored moving forward with the Beam project but it appeared the company needed more time. City Attorney Klein said that under the option agreements, the City must give notice of its intent to acquire a property by March 24; it then had one month to do due diligence and within 90 days the City would close on the properties or it would not. He said that would also require a supplemental budget allocation. Mr. Zelenka thought that problematic in terms of timing. Mr. Zelenka said he had also considered putting forth the acquisition of the Diamond lot because he thought its absence made the development of the other property on the block problematic. It did not seem too expensive a purchase to pursue. Ms. Taylor clarified the details of the letter the City received from Beam. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka’s concerns about the development of a single-occupant office building, Ms. Taylor said that Oregon Research Institute (ORI), the company in question, had clients that arrived throughout the day and evening. She wanted to proceed with redevelopment of the Washburne Building as soon as possible. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman, with the consent of her second, changed the motion to direct staff to return with the draft development agreement as soon as practicable. Ms. Bettman said the City should acquire the properties in question, for which it had options. She questioned the business model used to manage the properties, which degraded the properties and their ability to be used. She did not think the City would lose by taking the properties out of their current ownership and thought the prices being asked was reasonable. She noted her interest in acquiring the Shaw Med/Diva buildings as well. Ms. Bettman commiserated with staff on the failure of the recent ballot measure but hoped that it could still work to pursue the project with all its expertise, and suggested if it could muster some enthusiasm, “that would be nice too.” She asked staff to try to put a deal together “for the sake of the community.” Ms. Bettman said she did not want to inventory the long list of mismanaged City initiatives, including ORI on the Sears Pit Site. She recalled that the council had strongly supported closing the funding gap in the financing for the ORI building, but ORI dropped out because it could not close the funding gap, even though the council gave staff explicit direction to do so. She hoped that everyone was working in good faith on the project. Mr. Clark had great confidence in the integrity of staff and thanked it for its hard work. He was willing to support the motion because it appeared the council had some options. Although the opportunity available was smaller than the council majority hoped for, he believed “incremental was good” and if the City addressed public safety and made some minor code adjustments, he believed it could attract investment downtown with an incremental approach. Ms. Solomon commended staff and its expertise. In regard to ORI, she said she had not voted to close the funding gap for ORI. She agreed that the council was at a disadvantage coming back to the table in March 2008 and she did not want to give the building owners more leverage. She asked if there was an advantage to letting the options expire and allowing Beam to pursue them instead. City Manager pro tem Jones said that Beam recognized the need for some subsidy from the City; the amount was undetermined, and the options were one possibility. If the City wanted to ensure that something happened downtown, it would have to work with Beam to make it happen. Ms. Solomon agreed that the City needed to provide a lift but suggested it could happen at other intervals through the project. City Manager pro tem Jones indicated the staff asked Beam if it could pursue options on the Washburne Building and the response was reflected in the letter. She said the Centre Court Building and Aster Pit were not the developer’s highest priority. Mr. Pryor supported the motion and any incremental action the council could take. He said the question of the options was a wide open one for discussion at another time. Mayor Piercy was pleased that Beam continued to believe there was value in its continued partnership with the City. Ms. Bettman briefly reviewed the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with acquisition of the Diamond property and return to the council with draft Request for Pro- th posal (RFP) options for 10 and Charnelton that are within the financial constraints of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 10 Work Session urban renewal district’s $33 million spending limit, with adequate time for exercising op- tions. City Attorney Klein said the Diamond option was both cashed and an exchange of property; he asked if the motion was specific to the value of the land. Ms. Bettman said yes. She did not want to see a proposal that increased the spending limit of the district. She added that there might be other financial resources outside the district the council employed. Mr. Poling moved to amend the motion to include the Roberts’ Taco Time property and Scan Design property. The motion failed for lack of a second. Speaking to Mr. Poling’s motion, Mr. Clark wanted more discussion of those properties and suggested there was adequate time to do so. He also recalled discussion in advance of the ballot measure about keeping the businesses downtown whole through the process, and he thought the motion could have a significant impact on Bradford’s by eliminating its parking. He welcomed suggestions. Ms. Solomon also was concerned about the impact of the motion on Bradford’s. She wanted to send out another RFP but if the council approved the motion it had more than two-thirds of the block and it seemed to her the council could go smaller or larger. She thought it the “wrong chunk of the block” to send out for an RFP. Mr. Zelenka suggested the next discussion was whether to buy the Shaw Med/Diva or Roberts building; the City did not have enough money to do both. He believed that the council should discuss whether it should focus on the intersection or control of the whole block, which he found an interesting tradeoff. Alternatively, the council could do nothing and use the money to assist Beam. Ms. Bettman reminded the council of the overwhelming defeat of the ballot measure, saying people did not want to go bigger; they wanted incremental and affordable and they wanted the two pits filled. The council attempted to use those pits as leverage to get the public to spend money, and now the council was left with the pits. The Sears Pit was there because the City made it so, and she thought the City needed to fix it. It was long overdue. The City had a small proposal for housing on the site and she thought it should continue on that track. She said if the ballot measure had passed it was likely the retail would have gotten built first, followed by the housing, and in the meantime it was likely that developers would have sought code amendments to build surface parking. Ms. Bettman said she would entertain as a friendly amendment to the motion that the RFPs contain specific strategies for preserving Bradford’s as she agreed with those speaking in its support. Ms. Taylor had no objection. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for all the work done by staff on the project and for its due diligence. She did not think staff woke in the morning and thought about how to spend money needlessly. She supported the motion and said she would also support the addition of the Scan Design and Shaw Med/Diva properties. Ms. Ortiz said the City could not do it all so it should do it incrementally. Mr. Clark said while he wanted to support the motion, the options for the property in question did not expire until August and he asked Ms. Bettman why the council should act before it had a specific proposal. Ms. Bettman said the City did not have to buy the site now. City Manager pro tem Jones clarified that the option that was expiring was the Scan Design option; staff could return to the council with more information about the other options at an upcoming work session. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Pryor concurred with City Manager pro tem Jones. He said the Diamond lot was not expensive and while the option did not expire soon he did not see a reason to postpone a decision given the cost. He agreed a decision was needed soon on Scan Design. Mr. Zelenka complemented staff on the work it did in regard to the agenda item. He said the Scan Design option was probably the most valuable option and the one with the potential for the most increase in cost but it seemed rushed to make a decision now. Mr. Zelenka said he had identified 15 reasons people opposed the measure, and he thought it was because they were confused, did not care much about downtown, opposed developer subsidies, and thought the project was too big for too much money. He did not think the voters necessarily cared about incremental development. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to extend the option for the Scan Design building. Ms. Bettman asked why the City should acquire the Scan Design property given that there was an existing business occupying it and there was discussion it was going to turn over, which she understood given the uncertainty surrounding the property. She said that nobody had yet made a good case for the acquisition. She hoped that the council could talk about the Shaw Med/Diva building on December 19 so it could discuss turning the building over to the tenants. She did not know why the price would not go down since the urban renewal project was no longer on the table. City Manager pro tem Jones stated that she had the authority to renew the options if possible without additional funding. She said that she would do that within the resources the City had. Mr. Poling withdrew the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 12 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 14, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Ortiz reminded the council and audience that there were many community celebrations planned for the observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Ms. Taylor stated she was disappointed with a memorandum stating that acquisition of natural park areas could be encumbered by negotiations for land, which she felt was contrary to council direction. She questioned why an executive session was necessary. She referred to an article in the December 14, 2007, issue of The Register Guard indicating the buffers for waterways had been reduced and said that was not a council action. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones was not certain what that was referring to and said she would check into the matter. Ms. Taylor conveyed the request of a constituent to pass a "no soliciting" ordinance. She said another constituent was upset that her garbage company would only reduce her fee if she was gone for two weeks or longer; a reduction for one week was not offered. She said a constituent had reported being the subject of threats and curses when he walked downtown. She noted that a fee on the sale of studded tires was determined to be legal and would request a work session on the subject. She recommended listening to a telecast of City Club speakers on the topic of conserving old growth timber. Ms. Bettman commented that the proposed basketball arena would require either a $50 million parking structure or many acres of surface area parking and there was no provision for needed parking in the $200 million plan for the arena. She said the University of Oregon had externalized its parking requirements and the impacts onto the City when Autzen Stadium was built. She hoped to avoid that problem with the basketball arena and asked for a briefing on the parking needs and how the City would assure they were part of the University's plan and not externalized onto City taxpayers. Mr. Clark thanked City Manager pro tem Jones for her memorandum regarding discussions that were contrary to the council's existing policy. He announced he had attended his first Police Commission meeting and conveyed the commission's gratitude to Ms. Ortiz for her years of service. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka agreed the basketball arena plan did not adequately address parking needs and that was an issue of great concern to the Fairmount neighbors. He hoped the City could work with the University to protect the livability of adjacent neighborhoods. He said a seven-story building was being constructed at 19th Avenue and Alder Street and it would be a 212-unit apartment complex with 40 parking spaces. He said that was a concern to South University neighbors, but the building was consistent with the development code. He felt that refinement plans should be a higher priority consistent with council's neighborhood goal to protect livability through land use. Mr. Pryor thanked Public Works and the Planning and the Development Department for their efforts to work with a constituent to resolve problems related to changes to his property. Ms. Ortiz thanked those who had attended the State of the City event. She requested a work session related to the memorandum from Brian Obie concerning the Fifth Street Public Market. City Manager pro tem Jones reminded councilors of scheduled tours of the West Town on 8th Avenue development. She announced that Public Works engineering was now conditionally certified for federally funded transportation project development, making Eugene only the second local agency in the State to receive certification. She said that three parks properties identified in the 2006 parks bond measure had been acquired: Golden Gardens ponds acreage ($1.7 million), a key parcel to establishing a Santa Clara community park in the Madison Middle School vicinity ($865,000) and a parcel significant to the further development of Amazon Park ($579,000). She said the earned income tax credit program which the City helped to promote had returned $7 million to Lane County last year. She noted that a joint session with the Lane County Board of County Commissioners was scheduled for January 16; the meeting was for discussion purposes only. She thanked Hult Center staff for its exemplary work during the run of Riverdance, which was attended by 19,000 people. Ms. Taylor said she was pleased to see an award given to Michelle Mortenson recognizing her work assisting citizens. Mayor Piercy said that Project Homeless Connect was scheduled for February 7 and encouraged councilors to participate in that event. She said that a local collaboration was under way to explore alternatives to commingling for recycling plastic bags. B. WORK SESSION: Adoption of the 2008 Federal Priorities Project List (United Front) Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson presented the list of Eugene federal priorities proposed for inclusion on the master priorities list for the United Front strategy. She said staff had identified projects with federal funding opportunities and vetted those through the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) and based on those discussions a final list of proposed projects for the City of Eugene was provided to the CCIGR, which approved forwarding them to the council for approval. She reviewed each project on the list: ? Delta Ponds ? Metro Waterways General Investigative Study ? West Eugene Wetlands Environmental Education Center ? Forest Legacy ? Franklin Boulevard - Multiway Boulevard (NEPA request only) ? West Eugene Transportation Implementation MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 2 Work Session ? Fire and EMS Simulator Lab ? Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization ? Beltline Corridor from River Road to Coburg Road ? West Bank Trail Extension Ms. Wilson said the Beltline Corridor project from River Road to Coburg Road was submitted to the CCIGR for consideration but the committee concluded the project was not ready for inclusion on the 2008 Eugene Federal priorities list. She said the West Bank Trail Extension request for $1.75 million was not included because Representative Peter DeFazio had strongly recommended the City seek funding from the State for that project. She said there would also be future opportunities to submit large transportation funding requests outside of the United Front effort. She said projects determined not ready for inclusion on the 2008 priorities list would be referred to the IGR Committee for possible inclusion on the SAFETEA-LU Reauthorization list. Mr. Clark said neighbors in the vicinity of the Delta Ponds area were convinced that clearing blackberries from the perimeter of the property by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) had resulted in nutrias invading the neighborhood. He had been informed that wildlife abatement was the responsibility of the ACOE and hoped that issue could be addressed in future Delta Ponds work. Mr. Clark was under the impression that the Beltline corridor between River Road and Coburg Road was the council's highest transportation priority and asked why NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) funding was being requested for West Eugene and Franklin Boulevard projects and not Beltline. Rob Inerfeld, Planning and Development Department, explained there were three steps a project went through to move from TransPlan to construction. He said first there needed to be a facility plan, followed by a NEPA process before the project was ready for construction; the facility planning process for Beltline from River Road to Coburg Road had been delayed because of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) budget cuts. He said the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) had recommended the project as a top priority for funding in the FY10-13 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). He said some of the NEPA process would be incorporated in facility planning to help expedite the project. He said that ODOT's budget deficit was being evenly distributed to regions across the State. Mr. Clark asked if the 2009 legislative session was likely to restore funding. Mr. Inerfeld said that ODOT had requested priorities from regions in anticipation of increased funding. Mr. Zelenka added that the MPC had asked staff to provide recommendations for local priority criteria to assist the MPC to objectively prioritize projects. Mr. Clark asked if the Delta Highway/Beltline project was dependent on County funds. Mr. Inerfeld responded that it was an ODOT project and could be entirely funded by ODOT, but the State would likely welcome County funding. Ms. Ortiz expressed dismay that the Beltline corridor project was not on the federal priorities list. Ms. Bettman hoped that staff recommendations to the MPC would reflect City Council policies on transportation priorities that elevated maintenance and preservation, and safety and efficiency over modernization and capacity. She questioned why the West Eugene Transportation Implementation project, which was the third priority, was being moved forward while the Beltline Corridor from River Road to Coburg Road project, which was the first priority, had been taken off the table. She asked for a full list of priorities from all of the United Front jurisdictions. She understood that Springfield had put forward two MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 3 Work Session projects that were not in the current constrained RTP. She asked why the council was not approving the entire United Front project list, since other jurisdictions' projects impacted Eugene's projects. With respect to the council approving other jurisdictions' lists, City Manager pro tem Jones said that was not how the United Front process had been designed. She said jurisdictions agreed that projects on the United Front priorities list would not be in competition for the same funds and the full list was reviewed to assure that. She said she would convey the council's interest in reviewing the project list from a regional perspective, but there would need to be a mechanism for resolving any disagreements. She said the United Front initiative was an effort to capitalize on the funding available to the region and did not involve policy; under the current process the council did not have the authority to approve or disapprove projects on another jurisdiction's list. Mr. Inerfeld pointed out that the two Springfield interchange projects had been moved from the RTP future list to the constrained list as part of the 2031 update and were now part of the current RTP constrained list. He said the West 11th Avenue was the council's second transportation priority and Beltline from Roosevelt Boulevard to West 11th Avenue was the third. He said staff was trying to combine those projects into one project for a future NEPA study and hoped to work on all three council priorities. Ms. Wilson added that funding for the Beltline Corridor project could also be placed on the SAFETEA-LU reauthorization list if necessary. Mr. Zelenka questioned why the Beltline Corridor project, which was the top regional priority, could not be added to the federal priorities list for NEPA process or construction funding to avoid delaying the project until FY10-13 STIP funding became available. He was also concerned with prioritizing the United Front list at the regional level to avoid competition among projects. He said the two new projects submitted by Springfield totaled $90 million, which clearly competed with the higher priority Beltline Corridor project. City Manager pro tem Jones emphasized that there was nothing that precluded a jurisdiction from lobbying independently for funding; the intent of United Front was to present a package of projects that did not compete against each other and would maximize funding coming to the region. She said the United Front process did not include a mechanism that would enable the list to be reviewed from a regional perspective, although that could be considered for the 2009 effort. Ms. Wilson added that the council could act to return the Beltline Corridor project to the City's 2008 federal priorities list. She said that was not precluded by Springfield's two projects. Mr. Zelenka suggested returning the Beltline Corridor project to the list. He said the purpose of the local criteria requested by the MPC was to assist in objectively developing priorities for the region and removing politics from the process to the greatest extent possible. He asked if the Beverly and Green properties would be eligible for the Forest Legacy Program. Ms. Wilson said the properties would be eligible for the program if the owners were willing sellers and staff could develop a plan for submitting them to the State as Forest Legacy projects. She said the Wildish property near Springfield would also be eligible. She said those projects would need to be submitted for the 2009 priorities list because the 2008 application period had closed. Mr. Pryor agreed that local criteria would be helpful in clarifying priorities. He understood United Front was a collaborative strategy among local jurisdictions and had not been formalized through an intergovern- mental agreement. He said it was based on good will among jurisdictions, not a legal mandate, and participation was voluntary. He said it was inappropriate for the council to attempt to impose its authority on other jurisdictions in the United Front process, which was working well as a coordinated effort that did not require mutual approval of projects. He would support adding the Beltline Corridor Project to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 4 Work Session federal priorities list as it was the top priority and reiterated his opposition to efforts to impose the council's authority on the United Front strategy. Mayor Piercy commented that she had participated in the United Front effort for the past three years and lobbying efforts were for the entire package of projects. She felt that it would be helpful to clarify the process as presenting the priorities as those of individual jurisdictions, not the region. Mr. Clark said he would move to amend the proposed motion to add the Beltline Corridor project. He agreed with any efforts at the federal level to increase the funding available to the region as it did not appear the County would be helpful on transportation issues. He agreed with Mayor Piercy and Mr. Zelenka that the council should view the process as a complementary, not a competitive process, that could enhance the region's resources through cooperative efforts. Ms. Bettman stated that the United Front list was presented as regional priorities agreed upon by all jurisdictions. She questioned why the City of Eugene would lobby for other jurisdictions' projects if the council had not approved them. She said the issue was one of transportation, and therefore land use policies on behalf of a jurisdiction, and the council had a right to see the entire list and determine if it really represented regional priorities. She was not certain she could support moving forward with Eugene's list. She asked if the Division Avenue Bridge, which was added to the Beltline corridor project at the last minute, could be removed without impacting the project. Mr. Inerfeld said the request could be for $2.5 million and language would only address problems in the Beltline corridor and the need for improvements to address safety and congestion issues without mentioning the Division Avenue Bridge. Ms. Bettman argued that the bridge could be brought forward during the NEPA process. Mr. Inerfeld pointed out that the NEPA process was designed to look at all alternatives and the Division Avenue Bridge was in TransPlan as a future project. Ms. Bettman remarked that she would support anything that moved the three priority projects forward. She asked why the Green property could not be substituted for one of the current Forest Legacy projects. Ms. Wilson explained that the application process to get a project on the State Forest Legacy list closed on October 1, 2007; the project would be submitted for the 2009 list, but there was no opportunity to submit or substitute a project at this point because the State's list had already been submitted to the Regional Office for prioritization. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Inerfeld said the Franklin Boulevard-Multiway Boulevard project would be a collaborative effort with Springfield and Lane Transit District (LTD) and the concept was a multi-way boulevard from the Springfield Bridge to Onyx Street, at which point it would become a streetscape enhancement project. He said the current request was for $5 million in NEPA funding. He said the partnership with Springfield and LTD made the project stronger and more appealing. Ms. Bettman stated that the United Front process did not reflect priorities and jurisdictions were proposing "half-baked" projects simply to request funding. She could not support the process. Mr. Zelenka observed that the NEPA process was intended to scope the alternatives and realize a fully developed proposal. He intended to offer amendments to the motion. Ms. Taylor asked whether new projects proposed by Springfield would place Eugene projects lower on the priorities list and compete for the same funds. Ms. Wilson replied that the proposed priorities lists from all jurisdictions were reviewed in the summer to determine there was no competition for funding and those lists MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 5 Work Session could not be expanded, only reduced. She said the two projects from Springfield were on the proposed priorities list and not added later. Ms. Taylor hoped that the process could be discussed well in advance next year. She asked if Forest Legacy funds could be used to reimburse the City for the acquisition of property with other funds. Ms. Wilson said that replacement of funds already spent was not allowed. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the 2008 Federal Priorities Pro- ject List. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the motion by adding $2.5 mil- lion for the Beltline Corridor NEPA study. The motion to amend passed unani- mously, 8:0. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include ap- plication for Forest Legacy grant for the Beverly and Green properties in 2009. The motion to amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman said the 2007 priorities list included a request from Springfield for $1.5 million for the Franklin Boulevard corridor study to upgrade to urban standards and Eugene’s request for $500,000 for a West 11th Avenue corridor study. She asked if the West 11th Avenue study had been eliminated. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the City received $150,000 in Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) through the MPC process and that was adequate to conduct the study. Ms. Bettman asked why Eugene was requesting funding for the Franklin Boulevard-Multiway Corridor project instead of Springfield or LTD. Ms. Wilson said that Eugene’s federal lobbyists felt there was a greater chance of success if the jurisdictions combined NEPA requests into one request. She said the council would be approving the inclusion of Eugene's NEPA request in LTD's request for $5 million in NEPA funding. The motion as amended passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the United Front list be rechar- acterized as jurisdictional priorities instead of regional priorities. Ms. Bettman reiterated her objection to lobbying for other jurisdictions' projects when the council could not approve them and said the intent of her motion was to give Eugene's United Front representatives direction on how to lobby for funds in Washington, DC. City Manager pro tem Jones said that while there was not agreement that the list was a regional document, there was agreement that even if a jurisdiction did not support an item on the list, it would not lobby against it. She emphasized that United Front was a funding initiative and not a policy process and changes would be required to shift from funding to a policy and regional focus. Ms. Bettman said she did not object to the policy of not opposing other jurisdictions' projects, but it was not fair or correct that those were represented as Eugene's priorities. She said in the past Eugene representatives were put in the position of lobbying for other jurisdictions' priorities without any idea of the council's position on them. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Ortiz remarked that there was more to the issue and the Mayor and CCIGR chair, who would be Eugene's United Front representatives, were clear about the council's intent. She did not feel a motion was necessary. She said the term "united front" meant that local jurisdictions moved forward together and perhaps the name should be changed if that was no longer the intent. Mayor Piercy said her intent was to clarify in the 2008 federal priorities document what it represented. Ms. Bettman said her motion was meant to articulate that the council was not giving its United Front representatives the ability to endorse projects that it had not approved. Mr. Clark remarked that the mayor of Springfield had missed a flight and was unable to participate in the 2007 United Front trip and Mayor Piercy had generously agreed to lobby for Springfield's priorities in his absence. He felt that was a good thing to do as it promoted regional harmony and was a cooperative effort. He would not support the motion. The motion failed, 3:5; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor. C. WORK SESSION: City Manager Recruitment Human Resources Manager Lauren Chouinard referred to the agenda packet materials representing data sorted to compare city manager total compensation from major Oregon cities and from selected cities in western states and to compare local public CEO compensation. Ms. Bettman expressed her interest in a system that would be competitive in attracting an excellent candidate and it appeared the City's pay scale was out of sync with other cities, although she was not certain how to establish a threshold commensurate with the candidate's current salary. She said that beyond that the six steps could be utilized. Mr. Chouinard said that the vast majority of city manager positions did not have a salary range or steps; the salary was negotiated with the candidate and annual raises were decided based on merit. He said in some cases a cost-of-living adjustment was included. He noted that the City's compensation was not consistent with the broader regional market, which could make it difficult to compete. He said deferred compensation was also an area of inconsistency and suggested that any adjustments be made in salary and deferred compensation. Ms. Bettman said it appeared preferable to not establish a range, but rather negotiate on a case-by-case basis with a candidate. She was inclined to support Option C. Ms. Ortiz said she also was in favor of Option C. She did not support an automatic cost-of-living adjustment and agreed that deferred compensation was desirable. Mr. Clark said he could support Option C as it provided the greatest degree of flexibility, but asked councilors to bear in mind that it was acceptable to offer a lower salary than other cities as Eugene offered so many other amenities to residents. He characterized it as the "green paycheck." Ms. Taylor agreed with abolishing the six-step salary range. She agreed with Mr. Clark that it was not necessary to increase the salary to attract candidates as the recruitment had been completed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pryor supported Option C and elimination of the six-step salary range. He agreed that Eugene was a desirable community, but the "green paycheck" only went so far and the salary range should be competitive and not rely too heavily on the beauty of the community. Mr. Zelenka said he preferred Option C. He asked staff to provide a list of the perquisites provided by other cities. He said the salary range appeared to be fairly consistent, but deferred compensation was substan- tially out of sync with other cities, as was the auto allowance, and those should be brought up to the Oregon median. Mayor Piercy said she supported Option C. Ms. Bettman commented that the green component was not applicable as the applicant would be asked to commit almost all of his or her time to the job and have little opportunity to take advantage of community amenities. She felt that many applicants were attracted because the council had indicated it was willing to renegotiate the salary. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adjust compensation for the city man- ager position as described in Option C. Ms. Bettman asked how pay raises would be negotiated without established steps. She said the council would need to establish specific performance goals against which to evaluate the candidate. She recom- mended that the next work session on city manager recruitment address creating a performance evaluation tool. Mr. Chouinard said one of the contract elements would be the process for granting pay raises or cost- of-living adjustments and staff could provide examples of language used by other jurisdictions. The motion passed, 7:0. Mr. Pryor was out of the room and did not vote. Mr. Chouinard distributed copies of scheduling options and reviewed them with the council. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve scheduling Option 2. The motion passed 6:0; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka abstaining. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 16, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: House Bill 3337 City Manager pro tem Angel Jones introduced Planning Director Lisa Gardner to provide an overview of the item. Ms. Gardner stated that the Planning Commission had recommended conducting a Comprehensive Lands Assessment of all land types as part of the Planning Division's work program. She said the purpose was to expand the City's tools and baseline data as it moved forward with integrated land use projects. She said the council had approved the work program as proposed, with the understanding the issue could be revisited at the current work session. She noted that the agenda packet contained several relevant items, including a scope of work from ECONorthwest and a memorandum from City Attorney Emily Jerome responding to questions raised regarding House Bill (HB) 3337. Mayor Piercy solicited council questions and comments. Ms. Bettman commented that she was not concerned about the bill, which was short and explicit, and she was not concerned with the results of the inventory. She did not think the staff motion was responsive because the bill only required division of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and completion of a buildable lands inventory, which was residential. She disagreed with the staff recommendation to inventory the existing capacity within the UGB and said in her opinion that meant the jurisdictional UGB had to be established first or the inventory would be based on the existing UGB, which was not jurisdictional. She saw two steps: establish the separate jurisdictional UGB and then move forward with the buildable lands inventory within that UGB. She disagreed with the expiration dates for commercial and industrial lands inventories. Ms. Ortiz observed that the City might be reluctant to take action because of the way the legislation was enacted, but it recognized the need to comply with the law. She said the City could comply at the minimal level required by the bill or use the opportunity to work with other jurisdictions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Piercy referred to a letter recommending that the council avoid a minimal approach and embrace the opportunity for a comprehensive look at all land inventories in order to develop data to inform good planning for the community. She agreed with that recommendation. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Ortiz and Mayor Piercy. He said the council was struggling to understand how the legislation was enacted and responding emotionally to why it was enacted. He felt that good governance meant elected officials had to separate their decision-making from how they might feel about something in order to make decisions that benefited the community. He liked the comprehensive nature of the proposal and appreciated staff's initiative to find greater efficiencies in opportunities to accomplish several tasks simultaneously and coordinate activities beneficial to the process. He supported a Comprehensive Lands Assessment as an opportunity to obtain information on which to base good decisions. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman that the UGB should be established first; otherwise an accurate inventory could not be done. She was opposed to doing more than what was required by law. She felt the actual costs would probably be higher than estimated for the comprehensive inventory and take significant amounts of limited staff time away from other projects. She preferred to do only what was specifically required by the bill in order to use the least amount of money and staff time. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Jerome explained that the bill did not relieve the City from all of the State laws that would apply when a UGB amendment was made. She said at a minimum there would need to be a substantial study of residential lands to justify the new location of the UGB along Interstate 5. She said other applicable statutes required significant findings about whether or not the new UGB was sufficient. She said it was possible that existing studies had enough information to make those findings, depending on how individual City land supplies were viewed, but it was not acceptable to simply draw a new UGB down the middle without further action. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification of the comprehensive assessment that was being proposed. Ms. Gardner replied that HB 3337 only required an inventory of residential lands, but the Planning Commission had recommended the Comprehensive Lands Assessment to consider commercial, industrial, and residential lands as well as natural resources because that information was important to future planning efforts such as infill compatibility standards, opportunity siting, and corridor redevelopment. As an example, she said that a comprehensive assessment could determine there was a surplus of one type and need for another type of land; the information could facilitate redesignating land in order to meet growth management goals. Mr. Zelenka said the process by which the bill was enacted was not in the spirit of regional cooperation, but the council needed to move beyond that issue. He asked how long a comprehensive assessment would take. Ms. Gardner estimated that it would take a one-year period. Mr. Zelenka remarked that UBGs prevented sprawl and protected critical farmland; changes should be based on a comprehensive assessment of lands currently within the UGB and a determination of whether there were opportunities for redevelopment and reuse of those lands. Ms. Gardner said that one of the reasons for the Planning Commission's recommendation was the chance to include redevelopment opportuni- ties. Mr. Clark commented that the council should bear in mind how creating a scarcity in the marketplace drove up the value of property. He asked for clarification of expiration of current inventories. Ms. Gardner cited the agenda item summary (AIS) language that stated the Commercial Lands Study would expire in 2010 and if no inventory was adopted before that expiration it would be very difficult for the City to make findings under Statewide goals 9 and 10 for land use policy decisions after the study expired. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked why it was necessary to incur the cost of consultants instead of using existing staff. City Manager pro tem Jones responded that staff remained the first choice, but if the expertise was not available or there were time constraints on the project or capacity concerns, it might be necessary to use consultants. Ms. Bettman asserted that the recommended motion was a political strategy to show the City was working with Springfield and it violated the intent of HB 3337. She felt there were already many efforts that enhanced the City's relationship with Springfield. She said her interpretation of the bill was very different and there were two decision points for the UGB; the first step was to divide the UGB by the jurisdictional boundaries in the Metro Plan and the second was to conduct an inventory to determine the urbanizable lands. She said the bill included a provision that it superseded the goals and policies of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) with respect to those actions. She said if an inventory was conducted before a jurisdictional UGB was established it would be using Metro Plan provisions that were not consistent with State law. She thought that conducting an inventory first would violate State law and make the process more complicated. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Jerome for her response. Ms. Jerome disagreed with Ms. Bettman's interpretation of the law. She stated that establishing a jurisdictional UGB and demonstrating that the comprehensive plan provided sufficient buildable lands within the UGB, as required by sections 2.a and 2.b of the bill, had to be done simultaneously because the demonstration had to occur when the UGB was drawn. She said the City was legally prohibited from drawing a UGB that did not satisfy Statewide Planning Goals. She said the bill preempted comprehensive plan provisions and intergovernmental agreements, but did not preempt Statewide Planning Goals or other statutes related to goal findings at the time of drawing a UGB; therefore, it was the City Attorney's opinion that sections 2.a and 2.b were simultaneous requirements. Mr. Pryor asked if the motion recommended in the AIS was consistent with State law. Ms. Jerome replied that each of options described in the AIS were consistent with the law. Mr. Pryor said that density versus size were the issues that arose and adjusting density requirements in a density only caused the issue of UGB expansion to be raised. He said if the City wanted to pursue a policy of not expanding the UGB that would then raise issues of density. He said the UGB and density were intimately connected and a discussion of those issues should be based on current, useful inventory information. Mr. Clark asked how long the information used to demonstrate sufficient buildable lands was viable. Ms. Jerome said statutes required the residential land study to show a 20-year supply based on data relating to land within the UGB that was collected since the last periodic review or five years, whichever was greater. Mr. Clark asked if the City Attorney agreed with Springfield's legal counsel that the legislative intent was for jurisdictions to take action on the determined information as soon as it was completed. Ms. Jerome said that Springfield's counsel had agreed with her analysis that there was no deadline for establishing the UGB and making the demonstration. She said the reference to immediate action was based on Springfield's intent to act quickly as the bill did not require immediate action. Mr. Zelenka commented that the issue appeared to be whether or not to conduct analyses of commercial and industrial lands in addition to the residential study required by the bill. He asked why the additional studies MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session were recommended. Ms. Gardner said a comprehensive assessment was recommended because it was important to have all of the information available when making land use decisions and having only residential land information might comply with HB 3337, but would not provide the clear data points necessary for mixed use planning. She said conducting the assessments together provided an integrated, comprehensive look at all lands within the UGB. Mr. Zelenka asked if the end result of the analyses would be rezoning some land to more appropriate designations. He gave neighborhoods around the university as examples where seven-story buildings were adjacent to single-family homes and hoped that rezoning could allow for a better transition. Ms. Gardner said that rezoning or redesignating was not within the scope of the comprehensive assessment, but could be a subsequent task. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to initiate a Comprehensive Lands Assessment based on the key elements in the attached pro- ject outline. The City Manager will fund this work through a combination of fund- ing strategies including, but not limited to, State grants and existing resources in- cluding the reserve for revenue shortfall. Ms. Taylor stated she would not support the motion. She said the City had already allowed rezoning from housing to industrial when a developer requested it. She did not think that rezoning actions, such as in neighborhoods around the University, were depending on a comprehensive assessment. Ms. Bettman said that Springfield was permitting building at half of allowable densities on residential lands. She said a "pretend" UGB based on jurisdictional lines would have to be created for purposes of conducting a buildable lands analysis. She said Springfield had rewritten its comprehensive plan and was vying for 50 percent of the population, even though population projections from Lane County were not available. She questioned how a UGB could be drawn based on jurisdictional boundaries when those boundaries did not exist in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Jerome replied that the dividing line between Eugene and Springfield was clearly defined and a meaningful analysis would consider a UGB that was not expanded and only changed by the dividing line between the jurisdictions. Ms. Bettman said that using a theoretical UGB violated Goal 2 requiring use of existing, adopted provisions in the comprehensive plan to make decisions, which was why she believed the UGB should be established before moving forward with other steps. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to proceed immediately with the steps to comply with House Bill 3337: first, establish an urban growth boundary consistent with the jurisdictional area of responsibility specified in the comprehensive plan and, second, demonstrate, as required by ORS 197.296, that the comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals to accommodate estimated house needs for 20 years. Ms. Bettman stated that her motion reflected the minimum required by the bill. Ms. Taylor said she would support the motion. She urged councilors to think of the money the City needed for street repairs and other things before spending money that was not necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka re-stated Ms. Jerome's explanation that Interstate 5 would be the dividing line for a redrawn UGB and the analysis would be done based on that assumption; once the analysis was completed the new UGB would be created along that dividing line. Ms. Jerome said if the analysis determined that such a UGB would not accommodate the City's needs for 20 years it would be necessary to adopt measures to do so. Mr. Clark asked if relying on a comprehensive plan that included Eugene and Springfield until a new one was adopted would conflict with goal compliance if the study was based only on jurisdictional boundaries but the acknowledged UGB was larger. Ms. Jerome said the City could conduct any study it wished and would not be an adopted product; therefore, there would be no conflict. She said that data must be available to support a new UGB. The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in support. Mr. Zelenka asked why the UGB could not simply be divided into two parts according to HB 3337, then using the new UGB for the study. Ms. Jerome replied that in order to adopt a new UGB that divided the jurisdictions, the comprehensive plan would need to be amended and in order to do that there had to be goal findings which were required to show consistency with State law and goals. She said the current data regarding supply and demand related to a different UGB. Ms. Bettman stated that the bill superseded State law and findings could be that the adjustment was required in order to be compliant with the bill. She said since a jurisdictional UGB was not being created first all of the analysis would be speculative and based on a "pretend" UGB. She objected to combining the tasks. Mayor Piercy remarked that there were differences of opinion, but legal council had provided advice and staff would comply with the council's direction. She said the reason to conduct a comprehensive lands assessment was to plan for Eugene's future. She said how that information was used would involve many different perspectives and political points of view. Mr. Zelenka said he was not interested in expanding the UGB, but wanted to look at policies to reinvigorate, reuse, and redevelop land within the UGB. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. B. WORK SESSION: Review of Draft Request for Proposals for 10th and Charnelton Development Site Ms. Jones stated that the council had directed staff to work with Beam Development to make the redevelop- ment of the Centre Court and Washburne properties a reality and to prepare a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the sale and development of the 10th and Charnelton development site. She said good progress was being made with the Beam project, but the total cost could not yet be predicted. She recommended deferring issuance of the RFP and committing more of the City's limited financial resources until reasonable cost estimates for the Beam project were available. She said that would also allow staff to focus its efforts on the Beam project. She said if serious interest in the 10th and Charnelton site was expressed that would be brought directly to the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department reported that the draft RFP had been presented to the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC), which unanimously recommended deferring the RFP until a binding agreement with Beam was established, the future of purchase options on downtown properties was resolved, and possibly the site became more marketable because of downtown code revisions. He said there was still strong interest in issuing the RFP and there was also some interest in the site; if serious interest in the site did materialize staff would return to the council for release of the RFP. Ms. Taylor agreed with the proposal to defer the RFP because it was important to move forward with the Beam project before beginning something else. She hoped for consideration of using a portion of the 10th and Charnelton site for a park and suggested that the pit could be filled with dirt and used temporarily as a community garden, which would improve the appearance for the Olympic Trials. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Braud said the options on the Centre Court and Washburne properties expired on March 24, 2008, and he expected to make significant progress and have cost estimates on the Beam project before that date. Mr. Poling questioned delaying the RFP when there would shortly be some resolution of the Beam project and there was interest in the 10th and Charnelton site. He preferred to issue the RFP instead of waiting. Ms. Solomon asked if current downtown code issues would affect the Beam project and when the downtown zoning review project would be implemented. Mr. Braud replied that the downtown code review process was currently under way. He said the Beam project would be primarily rehabilitation of an existing building and was not likely to face code issues. Ms. Solomon asked when the code revision process would be completed. Nan Laurence, of the Planning and Development Department, said that staff anticipated presenting three of the seven items to the council in mid-June 2008. She said that the items would need to go through a community involvement process and Planning Commission review before they went to the council. Ms. Bettman asked for confirmation that the council had the ability to create a variance or modify an existing code if there was a specific obstacle to a project. City Attorney Glenn Klein, replied that the council had the ability to change the code but was required to follow a process that included public hearings and Planning Commission review and recommendations. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the ERAC had steered the council wrong in the past and was a self-selected group of developers and vested interests. She suggested modifying the RFP by including a list of nearby parking structures and available capacity under Site Context and deleting references to positive financial return to the district that assumed participation of the Urban Renewal District. She agreed with Mr. Poling that there was no reason to delay issuing the RFP, which made no promise of urban renewal money for the project. Mr. Zelenka felt the recent election indicated that downtown was not a priority for many people and redevelopment should progress incrementally. He said there were many remaining downtown issues to address, such as purchase options and the zoning review, which could affect projects. He felt it was likely that the Beam proposal would require considerable subsidy by the Urban Renewal District and the limited funds that were available could be exhausted, leaving nothing for other projects. He supported the recommendation to delay the RFP. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Zelenka and would support the recommendation. He was not opposed to a park on part of the 10th and Charnelton site. He agreed that the election message was to move forward incrementally and effectively and was pleased that the downtown zoning review was under way. He said completion of that work could improve the chances for a successful response to the RFP. He asked if Beam was making progress on solidifying its relationship with a potential tenant, as the requested extension of 90 days would go beyond the expiration date for purchase options. Mr. Braud said Beam was anticipating commitments from tenants within 30 days. He said the March 24 deadline was to provide notice and the City would have 90 days from the point of notice to actually purchase the properties. Mr. Pryor said he preferred to move forward quickly, but would reluctantly support the recommendation to defer the RFP. Ms. Bettman asked if Beam had requested the delay in issuing the RFP. Mr. Braud said he did not believe that was the case. Ms. Bettman questioned the reason for delaying the RFP. Ms. Jones replied that the issue was lack of information on the Beam project. She said staff wanted to ensure success of the Beam project without having a competitive project that left insufficient resources to move forward. She said the delay would not stop activity and staff continued to evaluate interest in the 10th and Charnelton site on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bettman asserted that Beam was aware of the resources that were on the table and the council could decide what other resources it wished to make available at a later date for a particular project. She said that no incentives would be promised in the RFP and resources were not a reason to delay issuing it. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to move forward with the RFP with amendments to include a list of nearby parking structures and available parking ca- pacity and to remove references to positive financial returns for the Urban Renewal District and that the City release the RFP on March 1, 2008. Mr. Poling thanked the ERAC for its work, but disagreed with its recommendation on the RFP. He said if there was currently interest on the site the RFP should not be delayed. He would support the motion. Mr. Zelenka expressed concern that the Beam project would use all of the available urban renewal resources and there would be no money for other projects. He felt that downtown projects from this point forward would all require some level of subsidy. He suggested that small incremental increases to the Urban Renewal District spending limit could occur as projects came forward. Ms. Ortiz said she would support the motion in the interests of maintaining momentum on downtown redevelopment. She agreed that any increase in the spending limit should be referred to the voters. Ms. Taylor said she would support the motion, but was concerned with completing the Beam proposal. She was disappointed with lack of support for a community garden. She asked if issuing the RFP would affect the Beam project. Mr. Braud said the RFP would not affect Beam. Ms. Bettman clarified that her motion to move the RFP release date to March 1 assumed that each date would be moved back a month and projects would be considered in July. Mr. Pryor cautioned that there was still the possibility that the Beam project could use all of the urban renewal resources. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Zelenka voting in oppo- sition. The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 23, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Alan Zelenka. In the absence of Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President Chris Pryor called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Extra-Territorial Extensions Planner Steve Nystrom of the Planning and Development Department stated that the City’s recently adopted ordinance regarding annexation also included procedures for extra-territorial extensions. He said the purpose of the work session was to further discuss issues related to extra-territorial extensions, which were extensions of water or sewer service inside the City limits to serve properties outside the City limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Nystrom said a fundamental premise was the City's existing policies around the provision of urban services and the strong position limiting those services to City residents, while recognizing there could be extreme or unique circumstances where extension of services to property that was not within the City limits was in the best interests of the City. He referred to the criteria under which those circumstances would be considered and stressed that it must be demonstrated that a property could not otherwise be annexed and that the property was not vacant. He said that emphasized that the extension requests were intended to accommodate existing situations and not further development. Mr. Nystrom provided several examples to illustrate when extra-territorial extensions might be requested. He pointed out that requests were rare, with three going to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission during the past ten years. Mr. Clark expressed concern that an owner of undeveloped property outside of the City limits but inside the UGB would have no ability to functionally use that property because of the system that was being created. He hoped that the issue could be raised during the council's joint meeting with the Lane Board of County Commissioners, along with a discussion of whether the County would assume responsibility for permitting. He wanted to clarify what options would be available to that property owner and who would have authority for services. He asked for an estimate of the amount of property that would fall into the category of undeveloped, outside of the City limits and inside the UGB and was not contiguous. Mr. Nystrom responded that there were two different elements: annexation provisions and extension of urban services. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 1 Work Session He said Mr. Clark's question arose from the annexation provisions and changes to State law that would make annexation more difficult for those properties. He said the council had authority to establish policy around expectations of development inside the City versus outside the City. Ms. Bettman expressed surprise that the County was considering taking over permitting in urban transition areas when the City already provided those services through an intergovernmental. She understood there were criteria and unique circumstances under which extra-territorial extensions occurred and it would be difficult to anticipate all of those, which is why her motion focused on the process. She wanted to assure that a public hearing before a decision-making body would occur when the boundary commission no longer existed. Ms. Ortiz asked if local jurisdictions had contributed funds to the boundary commission and whether cities would be compensated for taking over the responsibility for annexations. Mr. Nystrom said that the boundary commission was a State agency and jurisdictions supported it through their contributions to Lane Council of Governments, which staffed the commission. He said any compensation for the City would come through related fees. Mr. Clark agreed that the council should be accountable for decisions, including annexations and extra- territorial extensions. He said extra-territorial extensions were likely to be controversial and asked for the criteria to be restated in any related ordinance. He wanted each application for an extension to be assessed in accordance with those criteria to remove any arbitrary elements. Ms. Bettman remarked that the criteria were in the ordinance, but because they were in several different places she was concerned that a request that was controversial could slip through without the stop-gap of a public hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to pre- pare an ordinance amending the code so that the process for considering extra- territorial extension applications: 1. Requires a public hearing before the City Council and makes the City Council the final local decision-making body; and 2. Requires that notice of the City Council's public hearing be posted on the prop- erty which is the subject of the application so that the notice is visible from ad- jacent streets and that the notice be mailed to the appropriate neighborhood as- sociations, and all property owners and residents within 750 feet of that prop- erty's perimeter. Ms. Bettman further moved to direct the City Manager to hold any applications submitted for extra-territorial extension of water or sewer until the City Council has acted on this proposed ordinance or 60 days after the City Council holds a pub- lic hearing on the ordinance, whichever is earlier. Mr. Poling asked for clarification of the noticing requirements. Ms. Bettman explained that there had been problems in the past with property that was on a corner and notices were only posted on one street. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Crest Drive Community Team Recommended Design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street and Street Design Standards Minimum Sidewalk Width for Crest Drive Area City Engineer Mark Schoening recognized members of the Crest Drive Community Team and their contributions to the project. He provided an overview of the “context-sensitive” process that resulted in a recommended design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street. He stated that a consensus model was used for decision-making and members indicated levels of support. He said three individuals did not concur with the recommended design at the final meeting based on concerns about the location of the sidewalk on Friendly Street, particularly that they were not always on the uphill side of the street. Mr. Schoening highlighted the design concept, which included 18-foot street widths with two 9-foot travel lanes and a sidewalk on one side alternating between uphill and downhill sides. He said there were numerous traffic calming devices throughout the area and all streets included stormwater facilities for their entire lengths. He said a budget appropriation in fiscal year (FY) 2009 would be necessary to move forward with design and construction in the summer of 2009. He estimated the total project cost at $5.75 million, of which $2.6 million was assessable to abutting property owners. He reviewed a number of options for funding the project as set forth in the agenda packet materials. Mr. Schoening asked the council to hold separate public hearings on February 19, 2008, with one hearing on the recommended design and the other on amending the design standards to allow a narrower sidewalk width in the Crest Drive area. Mr. Pryor solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked if the street designation could be changed to arterial or collector to make it eligible for funding with system development charges (SDC). Mr. Schoening said that could be done, but there were several projects in development that were relying on transportation SDCs and construction would be pushed out several years. Ms. Bettman commented that the project was a City priority and not initiated by the neighborhood and asked why it would not be eligible for SDC reimbursement. Mr. Schoening said the language establishing reimbursement fees dedicated those funds to pavement rehabilitation and restoration projects. He said all of those funds were currently being used on the existing improved street system with a focus on arterials and collectors. Ms. Bettman pointed out that redesignating the streets as arterials or collectors would make the project eligible for those funds and it would be a matter of shifting priorities from other projects to the Crest Drive project. She said that the capital improvement program (CIP) had $11 million reserved for upgrades and capacity enhancements and some of those funds could be redirected to the Crest Drive project if it was a priority. She asked for clarification of how the sidewalk exception from five to four feet would be applied. Mr. Schoening explained that the exception would be an amendment to the design standards applicable to all classified and unclassified streets, but it was specific to the Crest Drive area. Mr. Clark supported moving the items to public hearings. He noted that the purpose of the project was to make Crest Drive a narrow street to decrease the amount of traffic and that would seem to conflict with designation as an arterial or collector. Mr. Schoening said that traffic volume was one of five criteria for designating streets with the idea that the streets would form a network with collectors equally spaced throughout the City that tied into arterials. He said the context sensitive process set aside the issue of functional classification and focused on design. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Clark favored looking at creative ways to finance the project without adding substantial new tax burdens, but he was reluctant to classify the street as an arterial or collector when the intent was to minimize the amount of traffic on that street. He said the project should be put into the mix of priorities that would be balanced during the budgeting process. He asked if the design included sloped curbs. Mr. Schoening replied that the design included a combination of vertical, flat and sloped curbs. Mr. Clark expressed concern with sloped curbs in a narrow street environment and the possibility that a vehicle could travel onto a sidewalk and injure a pedestrian or bicycle rider. Ms. Taylor said her concern was with the cost to property owners who would be assessed. She asked what consequences there would be if construction was completed and a property owner could not pay the assessment. Mr. Schoening said there was an income-based subsidy program or payment could be deferred until the property changed hands; however, a lien was placed on the property and the City could foreclose if payment was not made. Ms. Taylor felt the assessment was unfair, particularly since those who would benefit, such as properties in cul de sacs, would not have to pay as only property abutting the street would be assessed. She asked if the City could accept donations to help pay for the assessments of those who could not afford to pay. Mr. Schoening said the City could find a way to accept funds. Ms. Taylor asked why the neighborhood wanted four-foot sidewalks. Mr. Schoening said the consensus was that they better met the themes and values that the community team established. Ms. Taylor asked if the sidewalk could be located on the uphill side of the street for its entire length. Mr. Schoening said there was no physical reason the sidewalk could not be on the uphill side. Ms. Bettman asked if properties along Friendly Street would be assessed for parking. Mr. Schoening said those properties would only be assessed for lane width, not parking, as residents felt parking needs could be met with mountable curbs. Ms. Bettman stated that Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds would be available for the project. Mr. Schoening said STP-U funds could only be used if streets were arterials or collectors. Ms. Bettman said the original intent was to reclassify streets after there was agreement on a design. She said there was no guarantee the council would move forward with a general obligation bond in May 2008 or the bond could fail. She said the council's transportation subcommittee did not anticipate the project when it recommended transportation funding options. She objected to placing the project on the list for funding from traditional sources. Ms. Taylor clarified that funding would pay the City's share of project costs and not be used to assist residents to pay their assessments. She asked if Mr. Schoening's reference to pushing out the construction timeline referred to the Crest Drive project. Mr. Schoening said it did as reclassifying the streets would place the project in competition for funding with many other projects that were further along in the planning and implementation process. Ms. Ortiz remarked that the longer a project was delayed the higher the costs to complete it. Ms. Bettman commented that the narrow street design was intended to minimize the impact of traffic, not minimize traffic. She reiterated that SDC and capital project funds should be available for the project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to hold a public hearing on February 19, 2008, on the recommended design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street and a public hearing on February 19, 2008, on reducing the minimum sidewalk width design standard from five feet to four feet in the Crest Drive area. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 5 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 March 10, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor (by telephone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Ms. Taylor would be participating by telephone from Washington, DC. A. ACTION: Resolution 4932 Calling a City Election on May 20, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Electors of the City of Eugene Ordinance No. 20401 Amending Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337, to Extend the Sunset of $0.02 Per Gallon of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax until February 28, 2011 Mayor Piercy said the County had conducted its first round of validation on the petition and the signatures had not been acceptable; a second validation was underway and she expected results in three or four days. City Attorney Jerome Lidz outlined the council’s choices with regard to the ordinance it adopted in January 2008, extending the sunset provision of a portion of the gas tax. He said signatures had been gathered to refer that ordinance to an election and the County was in the process of validating the petition. He reviewed the options set forth in the agenda item summary, which included repealing the ordinance, sending the measure to the May ballot, taking no action and allowing the measure to go to a September election if there were sufficient signatures, and referring a competing measure to the September ballot. Ms. Bettman said she was inclined to take no action and wait until there was a final determination on petition signatures before taking action. She understood that if the council took no action the ordinance was not enforceable if there were enough signatures to refer it to the ballot and the $0.02 would not be collected through September. If there was no other competing measure, the council had the option to move the election to November. Mr. Lidz said the council did not currently have the option to move the election; it was one of the election code amendments that would be considered later on the agenda. Mr. Poling said he was inclined to accept the City Manager’s recommendation to adopt a resolution and place it on the May ballot. He pointed out that the $0.02 tax was enacted until other funding sources were sought and that had not yet happened; it was not a new tax. He preferred the less expensive option of placing the measure on the May ballot to that of a special election. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling about avoiding the expense of a special election. He felt the people had a right to vote on the matter and asked what the threshold was for valid signatures. City Recorder Mary MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Feldman said the County was required to use a statistical sampling methodology, which varied from one petition to another. Mr. Clark said it would be difficult to pass the measure and would be in favor of repealing the ordinance and saving the voters the expense of an election. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that it was not a new tax; it was a continuation of an existing tax. He preferred a May election consistent with the City Manager’s recommendation. He said there were a wide range of gas prices in the metropolitan area and the $0.02 tax probably had little impact on consumer choices. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Taylor indicated they would support the City Manager’s recommendation. Mayor Piercy pointed out that $17 million in gas tax revenue had gone to pothole repairs throughout the community. Mr. Zelenka added that all gas tax revenue was dedicated by law to road repairs. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution No. 4932, Calling a City Election on May 20, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene, if the Requisite Signatures Were Obtained on the Referendum Petition, Ordinance No. 20401 Amending Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337, to Extend the Sunset of $0.02 per Gallon of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax Until February 28, 2011. Mr. Clark moved to substitute a motion to repeal Ordinance No. 20401. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the sunset provision was extended instead of being repealed because the gas station owners asked the City for the opportunity to work with the legislature to institute a statewide gas tax; the City’s tax could be repealed if a statewide tax left the City whole. He said the gas tax was being extended because there had not yet been a funding solution at the State level. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the preparation and distribution of a vot- ers pamphlet for the May 20, 2008, Primary Election and authorize the expenditure of up to $25,000 for the voters pamphlet. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add language regarding the requisite number of signatures. Mr. Pryor accepted the amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka and Chris Pryor to the Voters’ Pamphlet Proponent Committee for the ballot measure on Ordinance No. 20401, should the requisite number of signatures be verified. The motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor left the meeting at 5:5 p.m. th B. WORK SESSION: Neighborhood Infill/19 and Alder Proposal MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Terri Harding of the Planning Division provided an overview of a development proposal for a seven-story, th 52-unit apartment building at the corner of 19 Avenue and Alder Street. She said neighbors had expressed concern about the compatibility of the development with the surrounding neighborhood and Mr. Zelenka had posed several questions related to those concerns, which were addressed in the agenda item summary and related materials. She said the developer had indicated the price of the property was based on its zoning and development potential and it was necessary to build a certain number of units to make a profit on the property. She said the possibility of a multi-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) might make a smaller building feasible, but the MUPTE boundary would need to be expanded to include the site. Ms. Harding said a moratorium on the building was not recommended because of the process requirements which would take longer than 45 days, during which time a building permit could be submitted. She said the Minor Code Amendments Process (MiCAP) was unlikely to affect the height of a building on the site, although parking provisions could require increased parking on the site. She said any other code amend- ments that might resolve the issue would be subject to a process that would require at least four months. She said the question of whether to expand the definition of infill to address the number of residents per apartment would be forwarded to the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team for evaluation as part th of the ICS process. She said designating the area directly south of the University on 19 Avenue between Hilyard and Agate streets would also be explored. Ms. Harding reviewed the council’s options and said the City Manager recommended option 1 and 3 related to working with neighborhood residents on long-term city-wide solutions through the ICS process and working with the developer to encourage consideration of the neighborhood’s concerns. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Harding illustrated the existing zoning in the neighborhood on an aerial photograph. Ms. Bettman said she could support the City Manager’s recommendation but would offer a motion to amend it. She objected to revising the MUPTE boundary for one particular project and if the council wished to provide a subsidy in exchange for certain design changes it should look to other funding sources. She said it was ironic that some development was allowed at the lowest possible density in outlying neighborhoods while the highest possible density was required in the urban core. She said a minimum density requirement compatible with the City’s objective of absorbing population growth without expanding the urban growth boundary should be imposed on new development. Mr. Zelenka said the residents do not object to development; but wanted it to be compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood through a graceful transition instead of an abrupt edge. He would propose a number of amendments to the City Manager’s recommendation to address that concern. Mr. Clark related that he had toured the site and observed the existing parking problems in the area, which would be compounded by the proposed development, although the developer was simply following the rules established by the City. He hoped a way could be found to mitigate the impact, but this issue reflected the quandary of the City’s growing up or out. He asked if Alder Street would be altered in any way. Ms. Harding replied there were no plans to change the street. Mr. Pryor said the council’s involvement in attempting to resolve the conflict between the developer’s need for a financially viable project and the neighborhood’s concern with compatibility would be to find a solution that recognized both of those interests. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz agreed it was a difficult issue to resolve and it was about balancing the interests of both sides. She would support the recommendation to require the developer and the neighborhood to continue working together to find a solution. Mayor Piercy stated it was a classic example of trying to live more densely, but that should not mean having to choose between greater density and neighborhood character. Mr. Zelenka commended the developer’s willingness to discuss neighborhood concerns. He said this issue could be thought of in two stages: short-term issues with the compatibility of this project and long-term issues related to zoning along the south edge of the University of Oregon campus. Mr. Clark asserted that the City’s policies should be designed to be clear and dependable for those who were subject to them and he hoped to see greater clarity about the intent and policies so the council did not need to become involved in mitigating this type of conflict. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to direct staff to work with residents toward compatibility solutions through the ICS process. In addition, direct staff to contact the developer and residents immediately and continue to work toward mutually beneficial solutions. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the motion by including the fol- lowing language: to direct the City Manager to pursue through the Minor Code Amend- ment Process code amendments that would mitigate the following impacts from incompati- ble infill: ? Excessive building height in R-3 and R-4 zones that are proximal to R-1 zones, ? Excessive demand for on-street parking by multi-family development in R-3 and R-4 zones with a substantial number of dwelling units that have five or more bedrooms, ? Include a definition in the code’s glossary for “Residential Character” to mean that the use, zoning or development of land or structure that is residential vs. non-residential, as well as the particular nature and character of the current or potential residential use, zoning or development. Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her motion. She said people were not opposed to all density; they were opposed to incompatible density. She said the issues identified were relevant to neighborhoods across the City. Ms. Harding noted that excessive on-street parking demand was currently being addressed in the MiCAP process. Regarding excessive building height, she said the current code offered protection by limiting height of development in R-3 and R-4 to 30 feet if it was within 50 feet of an R-1 zone. She was concerned about how Ms. Bettman’s amendment would affect the rest of R-4 and R-3 zones and developers’ ability to attain the higher densities the City sought. She felt the MiCAP process would be slowed by adding items that would require deeper analysis. She was not certain that adding the definition would address the problem when a development went directly to a building permit. Mr. Zelenka offered friendly amendments to change the reference in the second bulleted item from five or more bedrooms to three or more bedrooms and to add the following phrase at the end of the first bulleted item: to reflect a height transition into the R-1 zoned area. Ms. Bettman accepted both friendly amendments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 4 Work Session In response to questions from Mr. Clark, Ms. Harding said the amendment would expand the building height trigger that was already in the code. She said MiCAP staff would need to rethink the code amendment that was currently being proposed if the motion passed. Mr. Clark reiterated his primary concern was to achieve certainty and clarity in the code amendment process so that developers would understand the implications of purchasing a property zoned R-4. He did not want each development proposal to be subjected to council intervention. He was in favor of a lower threshold for parking requirements. Ms. Solomon preferred to let the ICS Task Team review the issues. She objected to adding items to the th MiCAP process at this point. She was concerned with changing the rules after the developer of the 19 and Alder property had research the code and purchased property with a specific development in mind. She did not want to frustrate developers who were necessary to helping the City achieve its goals. th City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that any of the amendments being discussed would not affect the 19 and Alder project as long as the developer submitted his building permit application before the amendments were approved by the council. Mr. Poling was not opposed to adding the items to the code amendment work plan and did not feel they would affect the developer because it would take some time to complete the amendment process. The vote on the motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add a requirement for the City Council to send a letter to the developer encouraging him to work with the neighbors to make the project more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; to direct staff to include the area south of the University from Alder Street to Agate Street as a test case for the ICS process; to direct staff to have the ICS investigate and make high priority alternative definitions of density, including people per acre instead of units per acre, and in- vestigate enforcement mechanisms; to direct the staff to have the ICS investigate and make a high priority alternative parking requirements, including consideration of people per acre rather than merely number of units; and have staff bring back options for incentives for making the project more sustainable and more compatible. Ms. Bettman indicated she was withdrawing her second unless the language related to incentives was removed. Mr. Zelenka agreed to remove that language from his motion. Ms. Bettman confirmed her second to the motion without incentive language. Mr. Clark expressed concern that there was not adequate time to fully discuss and understand the implica- tions of some items in Mr. Zelenka’s motion. Ms. Solomon said the motion dealt with items that spoke to the larger issue of infill, which should be discussed at a separate work session. She was loath to direct the ICS to make certain items priorities. The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 5 Work Session The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 7:0. C. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Evaluation Process City Manager pro tem Angel Jones introduced Alana Holmes of Human Resources to outline the short-term and comprehensive evaluation processes for the police auditor. She suggested a shortened evaluation process to review the past year since Cris Beamud was hired as the Police Auditor, followed by development of a comprehensive evaluation process. She reviewed the materials contained in the agenda packet, which identified several options for the council to consider and invited feedback. Mayor Piercy thanked Ms. Beamud and the Citizen Review Board (CRB) for their hard work. She characterized the purpose of an evaluation as being helpful and providing information that could be used to move forward. She supported the idea of a shortened evaluation at this point and a more comprehensive evaluation next time. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mayor Piercy’s comments. She noted that Eugene’s police auditor model was unique. She said the ordinance was clear that the CRB would establish criteria and evaluate the work of the auditor’s office. She supported providing a verbal evaluation to the police auditor, using the Checklist Summary Form: Police Auditor Evaluation included as Attachment A to obtain feedback from the CRB and tasking the CRB with developing a recommendation to the council for a comprehensive annual evaluation process as set forth in Option A. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mayor Piercy and Ms. Bettman. She indicated she would like to see Ms. Beamud conduct a self-evaluation as well. Mr. Pryor agreed with previous suggestions. He said an evaluation was a tool to guide performance and provide support and felt the CRB would provide valuable assistance to the council, which was the accountable body, in conducting the annual evaluation as it was more familiar with the daily operations of the auditor’s office. He favored both written and verbal evaluations. Ms. Solomon asked if citizens who used the police auditor complaint process could be surveyed about the effectiveness of the system. City Attorney Klein said he thought that was possible but would research the question. Mr. Zelenka concurred with previous speakers’ remarks. Ms. Ortiz asked who Ms. Beamud went to when she had concerns as no member or members of the council had been designated as the point of contact. Ms. Beamud replied that she tried to meet with the Mayor and president of the council on a monthly basis and was willing to meet with any council member at any time. She saw an evaluation as a road map of important expectations in the coming year. Mr. Poling supported obtaining input from citizens who used the system as part of the evaluation process. He said the police auditor reported to the council and should go to the president or vice president of the council first if there were concerns that needed to be addressed. Mr. Clark commented that Ms. Beamud had been very accessible to council members. He was pleased to hear that Ms. Beamud met regularly with the Mayor and council officers and wanted to see her also meet with the entire council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka observed that as the council’s employee, it was important for Ms. Beamud to meet with council officers. He supported the idea of regular feedback to the full council, either at meetings or in written reports, on perhaps a quarterly basis. Mr. Pryor moved to provide an abbreviated performance evaluation consistent with the April 9 options 1 and 2 and develop an ongoing comprehensive evaluation process consis- tent with Option A. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Pryor would accept a friendly amendment to include Citizen Re- view Board feedback. Mr. Pryor agreed. Ms. Bettman provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. City Manager pro tem Jones asked if the self-evaluation was assumed to be part of the motion. Mr. Pryor said it was included. Regarding the idea of customer input, Ms. Bettman suggested using the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to contact citizens who had used the process in order to preserve the public’s view of the independence of the auditor’s office. Mr. Clark suggested having CRB members or Ms. Beamud contact citizens to determine their willingness to participate in a survey instead of involving another organization such as the HRC in the process. Mayor Piercy said the CRB would be tasked with determining how best to obtain citizen feedback. Mr. Poling suggested taking up Item 8, Committee Reports and Items of Interest, from the regular meeting agenda. There were no objections. 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling stated he attended the Eugene Police Department (EPD) promotion ceremony and awards ceremony. He said both events were well attended. Mr. Zelenka announced that the Willamette Career Fair, sponsored by the Lane Workforce Partnership, would be held March 13 at the Lane Events Center. Ms. Solomon and Ms. Ortiz reported they had attended a meeting of Active Bethel Citizens and were impressed by the new energy of the group and pleased to see a number of City staff present. Mayor Piercy noted that Lorraine Kerwood, founder of Next Step Recycling, was recently recognized as one of the top volunteers in the country and received a monetary award to reinvest in her organization. She reported on attendance at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) dinner and the United Front trip to Washington, DC. She announced the West Eugene Collaboration would be holding a design workshop. City Manager pro tem Jones said that options on West Broadway properties had not yet been received, which might require some adjustments to the March 13 agenda. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark commended the citizens who were honored by EPD for coming to the assistance of an officer. He congratulated Det. Steve Williams for being named officer of the year. He said he enjoyed reading to Ms. Nelson’s first grade class at Awbrey Park Elementary School. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon March 10, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. . Teri McComb, Monroe Street, Eugene, discussed the City’s procedures for assigning plots in community gardens. She expressed concern with individuals having multiple plots when people were being turned away. She felt there was an entitlement attitude displayed by some long-time gardeners, which resulted in an unfair situation. She suggested appointing three people to help resolve problems with demand for the limited space in community gardens. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, said he was an optimist, but expressed concern with the City’s lack of improve- ment in numerous areas. He complained about problems with the council, the gas tax, news media, the district attorney, the police auditor, the police department, the courts and downtown redevelopment. He was saddened that Councilor Bettman was leaving the council and unhappy with her choice of a replacement. He was pleased that Councilor Taylor would remain. Nathan Fendrich , Firwood Way, Eugene, said he was a frequent user of Skinner Butte Park and expressed concern about safety hazards to pedestrians by cars driving too fast on the road to the top of the butte. He said the speed limit should be posted very clearly, but there were currently no signs. He also said a restroom facility at the top would be greatly appreciated. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, Eugene, spoke to the issue of control. He said that attempting to control something, such as traffic or land use, usually resulted in an increase in the problem. He suggested that instead of controlling the central part of the city, controls should be placed on the perimeter and if there were no controls over the central part, the people and developers could develop downtown Eugene the way they wanted to. He supported Beam Development and its efforts to save historic buildings in downtown. Charles Biggs , 540Antelope Way, Eugene, said he had recently become aware of the limitations, covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) imposed on a piece of property. He related an incident in which the owner was attempting to divide a lot, but that was prohibited by CC&Rs. He said the owner brought the issue to the Planning MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Division’s attention, but the division could not or would not take action. He thought the City should help preserve property owners’ rights instead of forcing the owners to take legal action. Diane Searle, Jeppesen Avenue, Eugene said she was from the River Rock Glen Association and explained provisions that would be in place to assure affordable housing issues were addressed in the event property was sold. She said the City would have a lien against properties assisted with affordable housing funds and if a property was sold it would either remain affordable housing or the funds would be repaid. Paul More , 2586 Potter Street, Eugene, discussed the need for bicycle lanes on the uphill side of streets in the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard area. He said he would be submitting two petitions requesting the bike lanes. He said that environmental issues made the use of bicycles important. He said it was unsafe to require bicycles and motor vehicles to use the same lane and the roads should be wide enough to accommodate bicycle lanes. He cited the width of streets and bicycle lanes in various locations throughout the City. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments from the council. Councilor Clark congratulated residents of Hannah Dell Estates on their work to make the River Rock Glen project successful. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the December 7, 2007, Executive Session; December 10, 2007, City Council Meeting; January 9, 2008, Work Session; January 14, 2008, City Council Meeting; January 28, 2008, Work Session; January 28, 2008, City Council Meeting and February 11, 2008, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Funding for Housing Projects Affordable to Low-Income Persons D. Adoption of Resolution 4933 Adopting a Second Period of Special Assessment of Historic Property Pursuant to SB 416 (2007 OR LAWS CH 718) Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Poling and Councilor Bettman noted they had submitted electronic minutes corrections. Councilor Zelenka pulled Item C. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item C, was approved unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Zelenka commended the affordable housing projects recommended for funding by the Housing Policy Board, which included acquisition and rehabilitation of rental property by St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County for homeless veterans and acquisition of Hannah Del Estates manufactured home park by its residents. Mayor Piercy commented that the City was working to retain manufactured housing as an affordable housing option in the community. Roll call vote; Item C on the Consent Calendar was approved, 6:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing 3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 4934 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 Budget Manager Kitty Murdoch provided an overview of the second Supplemental Budget for FY08. She said it was much briefer than the previous supplemental budget and encompassed changes in only three funds: the General Fund, the Community Development Block Grant Fund and the Wastewater Treatment Fund. She reviewed details of the changes as set forth in the agenda materials. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, Eugene, stated that the supplemental budget appeared to be unobtrusive at first glance, but he had some questions about the use of $65,000 to collect annexation fees. He reiterated his concern that there should be a mechanism for involving the Budget Committee in the supplemental budget process to increase public participation. Mayor Piercy closed the hearing and invited comments from the council. Council Bettman thanked Mr. Barofsky for his comments and noted that he was a member of the Budget Committee. She said she would support the supplemental budget and noted that the $65,000 would be used to process annexation requests once the City assumed that responsibility from the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Councilor Clark asked about a large volume of annexation requests recently submitted by the City on December 31, 2007, prior to abolishment of the boundary commission. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said she would provide a memorandum explaining the submission. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4934 adopting a Sup- plemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 1047 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2007, and Ending June 30, 2008 Ms. Murdoch stated that the transactions in the Urban Renewal Agency’s (URA) supplemental budget carried out the council’s direction to propose a financial plan for property acquisitions downtown. She said the properties to be purchased were the Centre Court Building and adjacent subsurface lot, the Washburne building and the Diamond property. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. Nathan Fendrich, Firwood Way, Eugene, observed that 25 years ago the community built the Hult Center, a world- class performing arts center. He said a few years ago the community built the downtown Library and it was time to move forward again with downtown revitalization. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing John Barofsky , 2010Hubbard Lane, Eugene, stated that he was in favor of downtown development and the Beam Development project; however, he urged the council to keep all costs in mind, particularly with respect to purchasing property. He noted that the supplemental budget included attorney fees and loan fees and acquisition and renewal of purchase options. He said there were many other costs as well and hoped they would not be overlooked when negotiating the terms of an agreement with Beam Development. He suggested the City consider establishing “in- house” legal counsel. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and invited comments from the council. Councilor Clark asked staff to address concerns he had raised earlier. Denny Braud, Planning and Development Department, pointed out that adopting the supplemental budget would allow staff to continue the council-directed process of acquiring the properties. He explained the purchase option process and said the timelines included provision for refund of the ten percent down payment within a 45-day period. He anticipated signing an agreement with Beam Development within that 45-day period and noted the agreement would be reviewed by the URA. Councilor Clark indicated that his primary concern was with Beam’s ability to secure tenants that would provide the project with an adequate cash flow. He said the market was changing and it behooved the City to be prudent when entering into an agreement on a project that might have appeared more certain before those changes. He felt the voters were clear in the last election, but could support the supplemental budget as long as there was still an opportunity for the City to back out of the arrangement without harm. Councilor Poling said he shared Councilor Clark’s concern and was pleased to hear there was a 45-day period before the agreement was finalized. He wanted assurance that the City had performed due diligence on the financial ability of the developer to move forward with the project and would be protected in the event the developer decided not to pursue the project. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Poling’s remarks. He asked how the City would be protected on this project. Mr. Braud replied that in previous agreements the City obtained earnest money from the buyer when the sales agreement was signed. He expected that an agreement would be signed with Beam Development prior to May 8, 2008. Councilor Clark clarified his criteria for an agreement with Beam: the level of investment from Beam in the project, creation of a better environment in downtown, increasing the tax base and the benefits to the City as a result of the project. Councilor Bettman said she hoped to see the “pits” developed instead of two public nuisances in downtown. Councilor Zelenka said the benefit to the City from the Beam project was not yet clear. He asked if the level of financial participation required of the City was known yet. He believed that any downtown development would require some level of subsidy. Mr. Braud said the sales agreement would outline the City’s participation. He anticipated the City’s role to be assisting with financing of the project through a loan, not by granting funds to the developer. He said it would constitute gap financing for property acquisition and construction. Councilor Zelenka related that he was impressed with Beam’s projects in the Portland area and was confident a Eugene project would be successful. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing Councilor Clark reiterated that his concern was with the financial viability of the project, not with Beam’s ability to rehabilitate the buildings. He noted that the Portland area developments were struggling financially because of changes in the marketplace. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 1047 adopting a Sup- plemental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency for the Fiscal Year begin- ning July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. 5. ACTION: Senate Bill 111—Use of Deadly Physical Force Plan Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt the Lane County Use of Deadly Physical Force Plan. Councilor Ortiz asked if the police union had taken a position on the plan. Police Chief Bob Lehner replied that the unions of affected agencies were represented during plan development. He could not speak for the union but he had not heard any negative feedback on the plan. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Elections’ Procedures; Amending Sections 2.960, 2.964, 2.965, 2.966, 2.968, 2.970, 2.972, 2.973,k 2.977, 2.979, 2.980, 2.981, 2.933, 2.994, 2.996, 2.97, 2.1000 and 2.1990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 2.961 and 2.975 to that Code; Amending Section 2.976 and Re-Numbering Section 2.976 to Section 2.974; Amending Section 2.990 and Re-Numbering Section 2.990 to Section 2.984; Amending Section 2.985 and Re-Numbering Section 2.985 to 2.986; Amending Section 2.986 and Re-Numbering Section 2.986 to 2.987; Amending Section 2.988 and Re- Numbering Section 2.988 to Section 2.989; Re-Numbering Section 2.984 to Section 2.985, Section 2.987 to 2.988; and Repealing Section 2.992 of that Code. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Council Bill 4966, an ordinance concerning elections procedures. Councilor Bettman stated that she wanted the definition of elections expanded to include emergency elections and their application only to council-referred measures. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3) section 2.981 to allow the City Council to call an emergency election on a ballot measure only for council-referred measures, as follows: (1)(b) The time for voting on an initiative measure submitted to the electors under subsection (1) of the section shall be the first primary or general election held more than 90 days after the City Recorder’s certification of the completed petition under section 2.979 of this code, unless the council calls for an earlier special election on the measure. The special election called by the council may not be held earlier than 66 days after the City Recorder’s certification of the com- pleted petition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing (2)(b) An election on legislation referred to the electors by petition shall be held on the next available election date as described in ORS 221.230(1) or successor statutes that is not sooner th than the 90 day after the City Recorder’s certification of the completed referendum petition un- der section 2.979 of the code, unless the council calls an earlier or later special election on the measure. The special election called by the council may not be held earlier than 66 days after the City Recorder’s certification of the completed petition. (3) The time for voting on legislation referred to the electors by the council shall be the first primary or general election held more than 90 days after the date that council orders the legisla- tion referred under section 2.972 of this code, unless the council calls an earlier special or emer- gency election on the measure. In any event, an election on a council-referred measure may not be held earlier than 90 days after the date that the council orders the legislation referred. City Attorney Jerome Lidz noted that even with the possibility of calling an emergency election on a council-referred measure the election still had to be 90 days from the date the council referred the measure to the ballot. He explained that under State law the council could call an election at any of the regular dates during the year or make findings that there was an emergency that necessitated an election at another time. He said the amendment would limit the council’s ability to call an emergency election to council-referred measures, as opposed to initiatives and referen- dums. Councilor Clark asked for clarification of the legislative intent of the motion. Councilor Bettman stated the current language would permit the council to call a special election for a citizen referral or initiative, which was not necessary and allowed considerable discretion on the part of the council. She said there could be a council at some point that could abuse that and her intent was to limit that ability to council-referred measures and make that distinction in the definition of elections. Councilor Pryor understood that adding the concept of an emergency or special election that could be held at any time the council specified, required some additional controls on when that could be triggered. Councilor Bettman reiterated that her amendment would take away the temptation from future councils to use discretion outside of the existing election schedule to control the scheduling of citizen initiatives or referendums, thereby removing predictability and fair process from the community. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Bettman proposed a friendly amendment to amend proposed subsection 2.973(2) by in- serting a comma following the world “shall” and substituting “as soon as possible” for the word “immediately.” Councilor Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend proposed subsection (2) of sec- tion 2.993 to read as follows: “The City Manager shall publish and distribute a local voters pam- phlet for each election in which a City measure is on the ballot.” and to amend the proposed section 2.997 to delete the language: “Unless the council has determined that a voters pamphlet is not war- ranted under section 2.993(2) of this code,” and to substitute capital “N” for the lower case “n” be- ginning the word “no” following the deleted language. Councilor Bettman stated that the motion would require a voters pamphlet and removed the discretion to decide not to have one. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing City Recorder Mary Feldman clarified that the motion would require a voters pamphlet whenever there was a City measure on the ballot. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 3:3 tie; councilors Bettman, Ortiz and Zelenka voting yes, and councilors Pryor, Clark and Poling voting no. The Mayor cast a vote in support of the mo- tion and it passed on a final vote of 4:3. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to insert the following subsection (4) into proposed section 2.993, after subsection (3): “If a candidate for /City office wishes to publish a statement in the City voters pamphlet for an election at which no City measure is submitted for a vote, the City Manager shall publish a voters pamphlet containing candidate statements submitted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section. Candidate statements to be published pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the City Recorder not less than 70 days prior to the date of the elec- tion for which the voters pamphlet is published. If the City Recorder does not receive a candidate th statement by the 70 day prior to the election, the City Manager shall not publish a voters pamphlet pursuant to this subsection”; and to delete the language “subsection (3) of” from subsection 2.993(5), and to amend the language of the proposed subsection (3) of section 2.996 to read: “Statements from candidates for City offices, other than those statements submitted pursuant to sub- section 2.993(4), shall be submitted not less than 56 days prior to the date of an election”; and to amend subsection (c) of section 2.997 to read: “For voters pamphlets containing only statements from candidates for City Council or Eugene Water & Electric Board positions, the wards which those candidates would represent if elected.” Councilor Bettman stated that her intent was to require the City to publish a voters pamphlet if a qualifying candidate wished to include a candidate statement, even if no City measure was on the ballot. Ms. Feldman clarified that the amendment would apply to candidates for EWEB and the school board because City office candidates could always participate in the State’s voters pamphlet. She said there were budget implications to the motion. Councilor Ortiz expressed concern with the financial impact of requiring a voters pamphlet. Councilor Clark said he liked the legislative intent, but was concerned about unintended consequences and the lack of advance information about the numerous amendments. Councilor Zelenka asked how the cost of a voters pamphlet was currently paid. Ms. Feldman replied that if the City published a voters pamphlet in which EWEB candidates were included, each candidate could opt to participate and the cost was $100 per person, which did not fully cover the cost of the voters pamphlet. She calculated the cost of a voters pamphlet to be about $600 per page. She said additionally each pamphlet contained approximately seven pages of non-measure related information that would need to be added to the cost and which the City had always absorbed. Councilor Zelenka asked if a candidate could opt out of the voters pamphlet if running unopposed. Ms. Feldman said that was not addressed in the amendment. Councilor Pryor used an example of an election in which a candidate was running unopposed and there were no other issues on the ballot. He asked if the City would be required to produce a voters pamphlet in that situation. Ms. Feldman said she understood the amendment would require a voters pamphlet. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing Councilor Pryor said he supported the intent to allow candidates to make a statement, the current wording of the amendment would require the City to bear the expense of producing a voters pamphlet if one person asked for one; there were no mitigating conditions in place to allow the cost to be considered. He could not support the amendment because it was not fiscally prudent to be that restrictive. Councilor Bettman asked if a section could be added that would provide an exception in which the council could waive the requirement. Mr. Lidz said inserting that language would return the section to its original state and allow the council discretion. Councilor Clark urged councilors to bear in mind that voters pamphlets were not for the benefit of the candidates or the organization; they were for the benefit of the voters. He was in favor of publishing a pamphlet as it was one of the least expensive ways to education voters about those who were running for office. Councilor Pryor wanted to see language that would allow the council some discretion to waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis in order to be cognizant of finances. Mr. Lidz suggested changing the period to a comma at the end of subsection (4) of proposed section 2.993 and adding the following language: “unless the city council waives the requirement.”Councilor Bettman accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. Mr. Lidz reminded the council that it could not compel EWEB or the school districts to pay. Councilor Bettman noted there was not a provision to waive a voters pamphlet if there was no agreement to pay. Councilor Zelenka asked why the language referred only to EWEB and did not include school districts. Ms. Feldman replied that Section 2.993(5)(b) addressed school districts. Mr. Lidz referred the council to relevant language in the agenda packet. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to insert a new subsection 2.993(5) to read: “Prior to the inclusion of a statement from a candidate for the Eugene Water & Electric Board in a voters pamphlet published pursuant to subsection 2.993(4), the Eugene Water & Electric Board shall agree to pay to the City the cost of the Eugene Water & Electric Board’s portion, as determined by the City Recorder, of the printing, advertising, mailing and personnel expenses associated with publishing the voters pamphlet and distributing it within the city limits. Nothing in this subsection shall relieve Eugene Water & Electric Board candidates of the obligation to pay the fee required by subsection (3) of this section.” Councilor Zelenka asked how the City Recorder would determine proportional costs. Ms. Feldman said the costs could be estimated by totaling the costs identified in the subsection and dividing that by the total number of pages to obtain a per page total. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 3:3 tie; councilors Bettman, Ortiz and Zelenka voting yes, and councilors Pryor, Clark and Poling voting no. The Mayor cast a vote in support of the mo- tion and it passed on a final vote of 4:3. th Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to substitute the term “18 day” for the th term “14 day” in section 2.997. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to insert the following language into pro- posed section 2.965: “A candidate for city office must be registered to vote as a resident of the city at the time his or her nominating petition is submitted to the City Recorder.” Mr. Lidz added for the record that the sentence in Councilor Bettman’s motion should be inserted as the second sentence in section 2.965. Councilor Bettman accepted the recommendation as a friendly amendment. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Roll call vote; the main motion as amended passed unanimously, 6:0. 7. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Paving and Construction of Curbs, Gutters, Side- walks, Street Lights, Water Quality Bioswales, and Stormwater Drainage on River Avenue from 200 feet East of River Road to 100 feet West of Beltline Highway; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date (Contract 2007-02)(Job #3693 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the Minutes, Findings and Rec- ommendations of the Hearings Official of February 29, 2008. Councilor Zelenka asked if the assessment formula was based on front footage of the property abutting the street. City Engineer Mark Schoening said that was correct. Councilor Zelenka asked how flag lots were assessed and if properties on cul-de-sacs along the street were assessed. Mr. Schoening said those properties were not assessed because those properties paid for improvement of the cul-de- sac when it was approved. He said there was a minimum assessment of 50 feet of frontage. Councilor Zelenka asked how the City’s costs were determined. Mr. Schoening said the City’s costs included bike lanes, center turn lanes, costs associated with the intersection and other costs such as federal properties that could not be assessed. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Council Bill 4970, an ordinance levying assessments for improvements on River Avenue. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing