Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 12, 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 February 19, 2008, Public Hearing, February 27, 2008, Work Session, April 9, 2008, Work Session, and May 5, 2008, Executive Session. ATTACHMENTS A.February 19, 2008, Public Hearing B.February 27, 2008, Work Session C.April 9, 2008, Work Session D.May 5, 2008, Executive Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Y:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080512\S0805122A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber—City Hall February 19, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram; Amending the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram and Text; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map; and Adopting a Severability Clause (Oregon West Management, LLC) Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing, noting it was a quasi-judicial hearing. Mayor Piercy called for ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest. Councilor Clark stated he had attended a number of Santa Clara neighborhood organization meetings where the application was discussed and he had conversations with the residents about the substance of those presentations. He had heard considerable input both in favor and against the proposal and believed he could make a fair, impartial, unbiased decision. Associate Planner Heather O’Donnell provided the staff presentation, which regarded an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use Diagram, an amendment to the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram and Text, and an amendment to the Eugene Zoning Map. Therequests involved 7.3 acres on the west side of Green Lane, the former Santa Clara Elementary School, and 1.3 acres on the south side of Green Lane. She clarified that the applications did not include a development proposal. Ms. O’Donnell entered testimony into the record from Marilyn Spriggs of 85 Hunsaker Lane in support of the proposal, which was received after the meeting packet was printed. Ms. O’Donnell reported that staff evaluated the application against relevant criteria found in code sections 9.7730, 9.8424, and 9.8865. The Planning Commission considered the amendments and recommended approval of the application with two conditions to mitigate traffic and limits on building size and uses, pedestrian connections, and commemoration of the former school use on the site. The conditions were included in the ordinance (Attachment A). The council’s action on the item was scheduled for March 10. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the hearing. She called for testimony from those in support of the application. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Candy McAndrews , 4159 Victoria Lane, favored the applications. She was pleased to hear of the plans for the shopping center because Santa Clara lacked many services, such as restaurants, cafes, and other retail shopping, forcing her to regularly drive out of the area to other locations. The applicant had been working with many potential tenants. The Santa Clara area currently lacked restaurant, retail, and banking services, and increasing the selection of such services would lessen the need to drive. She said the development would save her time, gas, and money. She asked the council to approve the application to give residents better and closer services on their side of the river. Susan Hutchinson , 2262 Wisconsin Street, favored the application. She shopped in the area frequently. She said that Eugene was both a city and group of neighborhoods tied together by a sense of pride. She found Eugene to be diverse and progressive and devoted to community, and she supported community development as the need dictated. She said most of the development in the area was housing. She believed that the City’s effort to intensify development was being taken to heart in the community. More services for that level of density was needed so people could shop closer to home. She wanted more choices for shopping that she could reach easily without the need to drive. Ms. Hutchinson called for more retail choices in the area and cited several example businesses. She believed the development would beautify the area and improve the street network and sidewalks. The development being proposed was a mix of uses with an environmentally friendly design. It would help preserve land within the urban growth boundary (UGB). She felt the plan was an excellent design to meet future needs. Councilor Zelenka arrived during Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony. Debbi Tomely , 585 Chestnut Drive, spoke in favor of the application. She said the proposal was for the development of shops and restaurants currently lacking in the Santa Clara area. She was forced to travel to shop and dine out and called for nearby retail opportunities she could bicycle to with her family. The design proposal appeared very user friendly, pedestrian-friendly, and more inviting than the typical mall. She asked the council to approve the application for her family and the many residents of Santa Clara who needed the type of retail village being provided by the development. Gary Meili , 3040 Duckhorn Drive, a Santa Clara resident, spoke in support of the application. He felt the application met Eugene’s goals of using infill sites for redevelopment. It addressed both commercial and residential needs by providing close-in shopping opportunities and residential opportunities. The develop- ment would add much needed commercial development in the Santa Clara area in the right place. It would put less pressure on the community to sprawl along River Road. Those living close to the development in his neighborhood would be able to reach it by bike or on foot, avoiding automobile use. His family routinely bicycled in the area and the development would give them another place to go. He pointed out the development would include high-density residential that would help preserve existing farmland. Gary Martin , 2244 Lasiter Street, reviewed and submitted written testimony that supported the findings of the Planning Commission. Brenda Payne , 535 River Loop 1, spoke in support of the application. She said she and her husband and their two children had all attended Santa Clara Elementary School and lived in close proximity to the property in question. She said after the building moratorium was lifted there were many new residential developments built but the area lacked sufficient commercial development to preclude people having to travel out of the neighborhood for dining and shopping. She hoped to see retail development similar to that occurring on Coburg Road. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing Sue Prichard , 2671 Emerald Street, said she had represented School District 4J in its sale of the site and several other surplus district properties. She supported the application as a good and appropriate project for the area. She had received calls from 47 neighborhood residents interested in the property; three wanted the school to remain in place or hoped the school would be purchased to be used as a city park, and the remaining calls were interested in a quality commercial development that allowed people to go shopping without driving into Eugene. People wanted to see the school commemorated in some way. She had also received many calls from potential developers who wanted to buy land to meet the demand for commercial land lacking in Santa Clara and Eugene generally, and with a desire to buy a sufficiently large piece of land to allow for the creation of a neighborhood center to serve the neighborhood. She thought the plan being proposed satisfied many desires and it would be well-planned and walkable. Ms. Prichard thought the project was the right project for the site. Lindsey Eichner , 2860 Federal Place, supported the application. She said the proposed development would provide close-in urban services that would allow her family to walk or bicycle rather than drive to reach a restaurant and other services. She like the proposed plan because she thought it provided the neighborhood with a sense of community with amenities such as the community plaza and the space provided for a farmers market. She thought the concepts being contemplated would be a benefit to her and her friends who lived in the area. Lowell Eichner , 2728 Calla Street, said there had been five new housing developments in his immediate neighborhood. Santa Clara Square was built in 1983 and since that time not much commercial development had happened. He believed the proposed development would be attractive and would provide many opportunities for businesses and jobs. The development would also include housing and he thought such housing was needed in the area. He characterized the area in question as somewhat run down and thought the development would improve the appearance of the area. Will Eicchen , 406 Meredith Court, supported the applications. He had reviewed the plans and was pleased to see the site would not be another grocery store or strip mall, but instead a mixed-use development with stores of limited size. The plans represented a quality development with reasonable access, a good level of parking, and wide pedestrian walkways that created a good neighbor feel. He thought the development would be an asset to the Santa Clara community. Rick Satre , Satre & Associates, representing the applicant, said the applicant was seeking approval to construct a mixed-use development that the applicant believed would contribute to both the Santa Clara area and the community in general. He expressed appreciation to staff for its assistance and to the Planning Commission for its favorable support. Mr. Satre emphasized that the applicant had worked closely with staff and reached out to the neighborhood organization for its input. The applicant had presented the emerging design vision to the community organization in January and the graphics shown that night were included in Attachment M in the packet. He entered copies of the comments received from neighbors presented that evening into the record. Mr. Satre characterized the proposed development as “C-2 Lite.” Jerry Finnegan , 1250 Irvington Drive, said the Santa Clara community organization had not taken a position on the issue as its membership was split. He said that the property owner had come to three meetings to listen to residents’ ideas. The residents wanted the heritage of the area preserved. The property owner had subsequently met with the residents to discuss how to achieve what the residents would like to see. Mr. Finnegan said the plans included many of the architectural features of the old school, and the owner recently incorporated the farmer’s market concept. He did not think another developer would have bent over backward so far to meet the desires of the residents. He felt badly about losing the school, but thought the development might help rebuild the heart of the Santa Clara community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy called on those testifying in opposition in opposition to the ordinance. Ellen Hyman , 3863 Dorchester Lane, submitted her written testimony in opposition to the ordinance. Her opposition was based on her belief approval of the application would mean there was a surplus of C-2 commercial development in the area. She acknowledged the plans looked perfect but “it was just a plan.” She advocated instead for the site to be designated for community use. Lou Davis , 1220 Rislen Place, believed current policies called for maintaining the current stock of residential land, but if the proposal was approved, 7.3 acres of residential land would be rezoned to C-2 and 1.3 acres would be designated for medium-density residential (MDR). She asserted the following policies did not support the request: Metro Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Finding 11. Ms. Davis said those documents encouraged increasing residential densities in mixed use areas and areas adjacent to existing commercial centers. She asserted that the applicant could build 100 units on the school site alone if he followed existing policies. Instead, the proposal down-zoned an area that could support additional residential density. She asked the council to deny the application, and requested the record remain open for two weeks. Kay Prather , 3883 Dorchester Lane, submitted testimony that opposed the application because it removed a “public accessible recreation/education area” with significance to the community and replaced it with shopping and parking. She cited and read several policies in support of her contention, including River Road/Santa Clara Facilities Plan, Parks Subarea Policy 3; Metro Plan Goal 8, Recreational Needs; the City of Eugene pamphlet, Mixed Use Development in Eugene; and the City of Eugene’s Park and Recreational and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. She called on the City to maintain the property as open space and suggested that would facilitate the remainder of the development by serving as a stormwater facility. Maggie Yocum , 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the zone change because of the commercial corridor that already existed along River Road and because she did not believe there was a demonstrated need for more C-2 parcels in the area. She considered that there were already plenty of such sites and more were in the process of being rezoned. She further maintained that many C-2 developments in the area were not successful. She noted several pending rezoning applications in the area and rumors of other developments. In support of her remarks, Ms. Yocum cited Eugene Commercial Lands Study Subarea Policy 22; Metro Plan Economic Element Policy 6; and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.3. She also requested that the record remain open. Lee Rodenbacker , 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the proposal because the uses were not commingled on the site. He said the site lent itself to a true mix of uses and could be developed in a way that enhanced the neighborhood. He acknowledged the area was identified as a node in TransPlan but the City had not identified it as a node. However, the applicant asserted the proposal met the intentions of nodal develop- ment. He did not agree as he did not think it achieved a balance between commercial and residential uses. The refinement plan expressly prohibited the expansion of commercial land fronting River Road, and it directed the City to adopt zoning consistent with the urban facilities plan. He also cited the City’s mixed use pamphlet in support of his remarks that the development was not true mixed use. He also referred to Metro Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Findings 11, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan General Land Use Policy 2, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy 3.0, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Action 3.1. He too asked that the record remain open. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing Lauri Segal , 642 Charnelton Street, #100, representing the Goal One Coalition, submitted her written testimony in opposition to the application. Kate Perle , 4740 Wendover Street, submitted written testimony in opposition to the application based on her belief the proposal did not meet definitions of mixed use. Catherine Lesiak , 1600 East Beacon Drive, concurred with the remarks of others in opposition to the application. She submitted written testimony in opposition to the application suggesting there was already too much commercial in the area and the proposal was not mixed use and did not include either residential density or a commitment to public space. She said the developer had not committed to the design proposed. Assistant City Manager Scott Luell indicated staff would respond to the testimony provided at the March 10 work session scheduled on the item. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to close the record on March 7, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked for information about the maximum and minimum housing units to be expected at the current zoning, on average, with the requested changes. She said that the medium-density residential (MDR) zone allowed for some commercial, so staff would have to factor that in. She asked if the council could condition its approval on maximizing the housing units to be built. She also requested information about pending re-zonings as she questioned removing that much residential land from the inventory, which took away from the community’s ability to support residential. Ms. Ortiz asked that deliberation on the item be rescheduled to give the council adequate time to review the materials. Councilor Clark asked if the council could consider pending re-zonings as a criterion in decision-making. City Attorney Lidz indicated the decision must be based on applicable codes and plans; he would provide more information about whether the pending re-zonings could be considered at a later time. Councilor Bettman said the zoning must be consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Councilor Bettman said a portion of the property was in a node; she understood they were a means to absorb population growth. Much of that effort had stalled, and she questioned how many of the land use measures task force work had been achieved in regard to residential densities projected for the nodes as a means to accommodate growth. The same was true of commercial. Mayor Piercy requested applicant rebuttal. Mr. Satre responded to comments regarding the residential lands supply. He said the property in question was not included in the Residential Lands Study because it had been in use as an educational facility. He also pointed out that the staff report noted the proposal met the definition of Mixed Use. With respect to parks and open space, the record indicated staff had found, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the City complied with State planning goals in that regard and the Parks and Open Space Division was not interested in the site as it was too small and too close to a dangerous thoroughfare. He understood that MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing property was in escrow near Madison Middle School for a community park. With respect to Policy 22, the Planning Commission addressed, and found the proposal to be in compliance with, the cited policies. Councilor Bettman asked that the council be provided with a definition of mixed use and the section of the code in which it was found. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and noted the record would remain open until March 7, 2008. 2. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Elections Procedures; Amending Sections 2.960, 2.964, 2.965, 2.966, 2.968, 2.970, 2.971, 2.973, 2.977, 2.979, 2.980, 2.981, 2.993, 2.994, 2.996, 2.997, 2.1000, and 2.1990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 2.961 and 2.975 to that Code; Amend- ing Section 2.976 and Renumbering Section 2.976 to Section 2.974; Amending Section 2.990 and Renumbering Section 2.990 to Section 2.984; Amending Section 2.985 and Renumbering Section 2.985 to Section 2.986; Amending Section 2.986 and Re-numbering Section 2.986 to Section 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 Section 2.988; and Repealing Sec- tion 2.992 of that Code City Recorder Mary Feldman introduced the item. She reminded the council of the work session it held on the item on February 11, and reviewed the changes being proposed. The council would deliberate on the item on March 10, and the changes mentioned by the council would be presented as amendments at that time. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, thought some of the changes seemed sensible but he was concerned that the City Attorney was ‘widely regarded as biased” in regard to past initiatives and he thought it a mistake to rely on the attorney for any discretionary decisions such as the legal sufficiency of a referendum petition. He thought it should be referred to an unbiased party, such as a judge. He objected to sending ballot title appeals to Circuit Court because of the cost of going to that court. He preferred to keep the existing appeal, which was to the City Council. Regarding Section 2.993(2), he said it appeared to allow the council to ignore the voters’ pamphlet, which he thought a mistake as it was a useful informational tool and created the risk of making the public feel the process was biased. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing 3. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2008 Management Analyst Glen Potter was present to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Zelenka averred that the current fee cap skewed “who pays what” in regard to the fees. He noted that program costs rose by four percent while the fee increased by 43 percent. Employers with 43 employees paid the same amount as an employer with 500 employees. Councilor Zelenka thought the cap a disservice to the smaller companies, and asked if there was a different way to assess fees to avoid the consequences of the action taken by the Oregon State Legislature. He acknowledged that the City had attempted to change the law for a long time. Mr. Potter was unaware of anything but a change in State law that could allow the City to change the fee formula now in place. He acknowledged that smaller employees paid more per FTE than larger employers. Councilor Zelenka hoped the law could be changed. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4967, an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and the River Road Parks and Recreation District; and from the Santa Clara Water District Assistant Manager Luell indicated that Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter was present to answer questions, and the council would take action on February 25. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Ronald Bush , 441 Fairfield, a resident with an ownership stake in some of the properties subject to the withdrawal request, indicated his support of the withdrawal of the identified properties from the special districts. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. 5. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Offenses and State Traffic Laws; Amending Sections 4.115, 4.990, and 5.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Kristie Hammitt of the Eugene Municipal Court indicated the purpose of the hearing was to hear input on the proposed readopting of the State Traffic Code and a change to Chapter 4, Offense 44115, regarding minors in possession of alcohol while driving a motor vehicle. She characterized the changes to the traffic code as largely ‘housekeeping’ without an impact to the City’s baseline fee schedule. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Poling referred to 44115(2) and asked if minors would be able to take advantage of the City’s diversion program. Ms. Hammitt indicated she believed that was the case, and would confirm it with Judge Allen. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4969, an ordinance concerning offenses and State traffic laws. Councilor Poling requested that the vote be postponed pending an answer to his question. Mayor Piercy called for a brief meeting break. 6. PUBLIC HEARING Crest Drive Community Team Recommended Design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street Jenifer Willer of the Public Works Department was present to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Julie Redner , 2899 Friendly Street, expressed concern about the assessed cost of the road improvement project being contemplated on her street. She had about 100 street of frontage and would be assessed the maximum costs, about $20,000 or more. She did not think she used the street anymore or any less than those on narrow or panhandled lots. She did not qualify for a senior deferral or income subsidy but was a single head of household working for a small nonprofit, and the amount involved was huge to her. She asked the council to reduce the assessment, change the formula to be fairer, or explore alternative funding strategies. Paul Moore advocated the inclusion of safe and inviting bicycle paths in the street improvement project, particularly uphill bicycle lanes, to attract riders. He said the lanes would not add costs to the property owners or increase the costs of the project substantially, but the design committee would not investigate the question. He said if cost were to become an issue, it would be reasonable to consider alternate funding sources for the bicycle lanes, not to eliminate them. Speaking to concerns such lanes would take too much space, he pointed out the City owned a 60-foot easement on each of the streets and it had not been proved such lanes would not fit. Mr. Moore suggested that bicycle lanes could be narrowed where necessary because of terrain. In regard to safety, he said that concerns had been expressed about speeds from wider lanes but concerns about speed seem to be dismissed when considering bicyclists traveling on a 23-foot road width. Mr. Moore said another argument was that no one used bicycle lanes in that area but that was not the case. He acknowledged that many people did not ride but that was to be expected given the condition of the streets and speeds at which cars travel. He asked the council to include uphill bicycle lanes on all roads in the project area. Kathy Saranpa , Friendly Street, spoke of the work done by the Crest Drive Community Team and staff in designing the project. She said the team, which worked very hard for a long time, had included bicyclists. She suggested there were differences about what constituted bicycle safety, and she suggested that the addition of such lanes gave a false sense of security to those using them. The team worked hard to weigh all MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing values and needs and all members had to compromise for the good of the whole. She was convinced that slowing traffic would be an adequate accommodation for bicyclists. She urged the council to vote yes on the proposed design. Charles Quinn , 375 Mary Lane, a bicycle commuter and vice chair of the Crest Drive Citizens Organiza- tion, said he had been under the impression that by not supporting the previous approval of nine foot lanes he would be allowing more space for bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Now it appeared sidewalks would be narrowed and intended to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians. He said it should be clear that an 80- foot bus and two-foot bicycle could not fit into a nine foot lane, much less a two-foot sidewalk. He said that context sensitive design was a way of accommodating for unique situations, and not intended to disregard all logic and safety standards to save money. Mr. Quinn acknowledged that he funding system was not perfect or fair, but it was what was in place. He maintained that bicycle lanes and sidewalks should be standard widths and be consistently placed on the same side of the street. He asked if the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, children, and pets, were worth less than the cost of installing an adequate and uniform street. There was no safe way for his child to travel to Crest School via bicycle from his house. He asked the council to keep safety in the forefront of its thinking. Robert Hutchins , 575 Fulvue Street, said the street plan was a “Trojan Horse” presented by a committee made up of property owners who were designing a street to reduce their own costs. A miniscule percentage of the people were affected by the changes on the road. He drove down Crest Drive every day and had passed numerous bicyclists traveling the road on Saturday. Crest Drive was a major thoroughfare that th served more than the residents who lived on it. People living south of 30 Avenue and east of Willamette Street used the street to reach the southwest portion of the county, and those living in the southwest portion of the county also used Crest Drive. It needed to be small and slow because it was residential, but he could not allow his small daughter to ride on Crest Drive because it was so scary. He thought at least one bicycle lane should be included for all residents who used the road. Teresa Dingman , 575 Fulvue Street, thanked the design team and staff for all their work but expressed concern the design could not provide for safe passage for bicycles and pedestrians. The current design would jeopardize her ability to use alternative modes of transportation. She asked the council to reject any proposal that did not encourage alternative transportation and which posed risk to those choosing to walk or bicycle in the area. th Fred Lorish, 907 West 36 Avenue, said the design team had to take into account many factors, including stormwater runoff. The team discussed all the topics and balanced them against five sets of values it had created. The design team could not, and should not, take one value and raise it above the rest. Because of the discussions that occurred and the research that had gone on, the result before the council was an innovative, balanced design. He asked the council to approve it as submitted because he thought the design team had done what the council asked it to do. th David Cole , 841 West 36 Avenue, chair of the Crest Drive Citizens Association, shared a measure passed by the association recommending the council approve the preliminary street design. Laura Bailey , 2932 Friendly Street, a member of the design team, said she would be assessed $20,000 for the street improvement project. She noted the long process that preceded the design. She said the design team realized it was impossible to please every user and resident, and everyone had to compromise during the process. She felt the preliminary designs met the residents’ desire to retain the neighborhood’s character and feel, and most importantly, to create safe streets for all users, which was a primary concern in the process. She said all should realize the designs were preliminary and were only about 60 percent completed; MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing a neighborhood team had been formed to continue to work with the staff on the design. She asked the council to approve the design. Len Bailey , 2932 Friendly Street, found the assessment he would pay to be a princely sum that those speaking in opposition to the plan would not be required to pay. He spoke in support of the process, saying affected property owners worked long and hard and made many compromises. The streets and sidewalks being proposed would help retain the neighborhood character while slowing traffic, improving the safety of all users. He said the streets were not heavily used by bicyclists because they were so steep. Bicyclists prefer to use Lorane Highway. He asserted that residents rarely saw bicyclists on Friendly, Storey, or Crest unless they lived there. Those who wanted to cycle on the streets would find the design made them safer. He said the design was well thought-out and reflected the values of the neighborhood. He asked the council to support the homeowners and residents of the streets and support the design. Meg Stuart Smith , 346 Crest Drive, a member of the design team, thanked the members of the design team who were present for sharing their testimony. She supported bicyclists and pedestrians in the lower Crest th Drive area. She noted a bicycle connection through Morse Ranch that ended at 38 and Crest Drive that was mapped on the draft TransPlan as a discontinuous road and intended for a bicycle route in the future. It was a beautiful route that traveled through a variety of neighborhoods. Her daughter had discovered the path and used it frequently. Lyndell Wilken , 346 Crest Drive, a member of the Community Design Team who represented bicycle interests, said she had voted against the plan as not being acceptable to the bicycle community. She said the community’s vision for sustainability included bicycle access from neighborhoods coming to the core as a priority. She had questioned whether the design for Crest Drive satisfied that vision, and had reservations about that. She had been unable to completely support the plan because there was no evidence the plan would work and that traffic calming would occur. However, there was no evidence bicyclists would be safe in a nine-foot travel lane. Ms. Wilkins noted that lower Crest Drive was a public destination that served Crest Elementary School and deserved better access; at the present time, the sidewalk was on the opposite side of the ranch on the downhill side. She said she had tried to bridge the divide between bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, pedestrians, the environment, and aesthetics and continued to hope for a solution. She suggested that an uphill bicycle connection to Friendly Street would tie into Lorane Highway and continue the existing system. Ms. Wilkins submitted a proposal developed by Eugene resident Gary Rayor to the council. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, suggested that the local streets were part of the street system and most residents had paid for a street compatible with past standards. He was concerned because he did not think the City should have a completely new and uninformed process creating an arbitrary set of exceptions. He thought there was no evidence that streets that were smaller than 28 feet were adequate given the current size of cars and the City’s commitment to alternative modes. He agreed with those who felt the assessment system was unfair and indicated he would provide the council with a more equitable system. He said that the City Council proposed to overrule its engineers and those who had studied the issue in the past. He was sympathetic about the cost issue and suggested the council compromise to the degree possible within existing standards. John Rude , 1207 Courtney, a member of the Community Design Team, said that Mr. Moore had not shared that the CDT had a design team in place that included a bicycle coalition member that helped with the trail design. He did not mention that CDT members did due diligence in regard to bicyclists. He felt all effected groups had to compromise. He said that Mr. Moore did not share with others the entire process; he merely MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 10 Public Hearing asked people if they wanted bicycle lanes. He did not mention that Chambers Street was not desirable for bicyclists due to the steep grade, similar to Crest, Storey, and Friendly. Mr. Moore failed to mention that none of the Bicycle Coalition advocates lived on affected streets. None of the coalition members had offered to share in the costs of the assessments. th Howie Bonnett , 325 East 28 Avenue, thought the proposal before the council was unsustainable. He shared information from Portland about its infrastructure investments in alternative modes due to peak oil. The project was neither bicycle- or pedestrian-friendly. The streets involved served a school and accommo- dated school buses. He described his own attempt to ride his bicycle in the area, noting the current lack of bicycle facilities and sidewalks. He said he currently bicycled part of the way and walked part of the way to his house, but it did not work as well as it would if there were facilities in place. When he inquired about improvements to his street, he was told he must have a 20-foot street and five-foot sidewalk, but the council was being asked to approve an 18-foot street and four-foot sidewalk. He asked the council to envision how that would work with a bus on the road. Mr. Bonnett said that a bicycle lane helped protect pedestrians by placing space between them and vehicles. He said the City needed to start again. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. 7. PUBLIC HEARING Resolution 4927 Concerning Sidewalk Widths in the Crest Drive Area, and Amending the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Access ways, the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, and the Eugene Local Street Plan Assistant City Manager Luell noted the council was scheduled to take action on the item on March 14. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Charles Quinn , 375 Mary Lane, asked that if the council approved the project, it include the bicycle and sidewalk consistently on the same side for the entire route for the sake of pedestrian and bicycle safety and so that motorists knew what to expect. Robert Hutchins , 575 Fulvue Street, said he had two small dogs that easily took up two feet when he walked them on their leash; if there was anyone else on the sidewalk, someone would have to move off. Teresa Dingman , 575 Fulvue Street, opposed the four-foot sidewalks being proposed because they resulted in inadequate bicycle facilities and because she wanted the project to be as pedestrian-friendly as possible. th Fred Lorish , 907 West 36 Avenue, suggested the item should have been incorporated into the earlier item. He said the sidewalks in the plan reached from the top to the bottom and were connected. The team made a conscious effort to separate the sidewalks from the streets whenever possible. There were sections of the street where that was not possible. The team envisioned a sidewalk that meandered down the road He said where the sidewalk was connected to the street, the team worried about “optical width;” that meant that as a driver looked down the street, the more spaces that opened up created an image of something that allowed for faster speeds. Mr. Loresch said that was one of the reasons the team requested the four-foot sidewalks and narrower streets. Virginia Starling , 3302 Storey Boulevard, reminded the council to consider the safety of all users of the streets in question. That included automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. She thought the four-foot MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 11 Public Hearing sidewalk being requested was reasonable. Rolled curbs would make it possible for bicyclists to use the sidewalks when necessary. She did not think bicycle lanes were necessary. She said residents’ trust was the crux of the matter. th David Cole , 841 West 36 Avenue, shared a motion passed by the Crest Drive Citizens Association supporting the proposed exception to the standard five-foot sidewalk width within the Crest Drive area. Marlene Barry requested mountable sidewalks in front of the Crest Massage Center, saying it was a destination point for many people. She also expressed concern about the assessments, and proposed that the City issue a bond to help pay for the improvements. She said many people were not in a position to pay for the assessments contemplated. Ms. Barry pointed out the many people living above the streets that would use them to reach other places, and asked why those people were helping to pay for the road improvements. Paul Moore anticipated a bicycle lane on the uphill side or an extra wide lane on the uphill side. If that did not happen, he was concerned the sidewalks might be too wide and perhaps should be reduced in size to avoid pedestrian-bicycle conflicts. He urged the council to consider three-foot sidewalks to make it safe for the cyclists who would use the sidewalks. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called on the council for questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked about the requirement that 50 percent of residents petition the City for street improvements. Ms. Willard said that the question related to the formation of a local improvement district (LID) and she did not know the answer. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman about her assumption that the City must secure the approval of 51 percent of the residents if the City decided to change the design, City Attorney Lidz indicated he would follow up on the question. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 12 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 27, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Outdoor Smoking Areas City Manager pro tem Angel Jones introduced Land Use Supervisor for the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Mike McKerrow and indicated he would summarize the issue and answer any questions that arose. Mr. McKerrow stated that the work session served to provide an opportunity to revisit standards for outdoor smoking areas. He said the current standard required a roofed area that was 75 percent open and that the area only abutted one wall. He noted that in addition, fences or other enclosures were treated as solid walls if they were within 10 feet of the roof. He related that staff had heard from many business owners that the standards presented a challenge as fences were used for security purposes so that furniture and equipment would not be stolen and also that some enclosures did not meet the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) standards for separation. He explained that staff had also received feedback from neighbors of bars who were impacted by smoke and noise, noting that some impacts could travel 50 to 100 feet. He provided enlarged photos on the wall showing several outdoor smoking areas. Mayor Piercy related that Ms. Taylor had accompanied her in a Mayor’s One-on-One meeting the previous day and had received feedback from people living near The Old Pad who were impacted by the outdoor smoking area. She said neighbors also complained about the noise it generated. Ms. Taylor remarked that she had heard complaints about The Old Pad “for years.” She said neighbors found it difficult to be in their yards or even to leave their windows open in the summertime. It seemed intolerable to her and she felt the ordinance should be changed. Mr. Pryor said he was not looking to change the substance of the ordinance, but he was interested in fine- tuning it so that it operated more effectively. He wanted to work on the security aspect and the limitation to minors. He asked how sufficient security could be provided to a smoking deck without impeding what the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 1 Work Session council had been trying to achieve in the larger sense, i.e. air flow. He surmised that this could be accomplished with an amendment that would allow fencing for security purposes with a caveat that nothing could be done to impede airflow. Mr. Poling appreciated the points made regarding security and the limitations to minors. He asked if the City ordinance governing noise worked in this situation. Mr. McKerrow replied that there were two sections in the City code; one in Chapter 6 that was more related to land use code, development standards, or commercial/industrial uses, and there was a section regulating noise in Chapter 4, enforceable by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He reported that staff had met with neighbors of The Old Pad and its owner. He related that the officer that attended indicated that there was not always an officer to respond, but it was important nonetheless to make the call to report the noise violation so that they could be tracked. Mr. Poling said if the council decided that smoking decks should be a certain distance from houses this clause should only apply to new establishments being built. He did not support “penalizing” bar owners who keep trying to do the right thing. He noted that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) discussed the bills adopted in the 2007 Oregon State Legislature that go into effect in January, 2009, but indicated that staff anticipated clarification on the implementation of new regulations. He asked what staff was expecting in that regard. Mr. McKerrow responded that he had been in contact with staff from the State Public Health Division who had been given the assignment to develop the administrative rules. He anticipated that they would review the bill and then decide where it needed clarification, not unlike how something would be treated municipally. Mr. Poling preferred to wait to make changes locally until it was known what changes would come from the State. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Poling. He noted that he never favored the ordinance in the first place. He believed the previous ordinance drove smokers outside so that they became a nuisance. He averred that additions to the current ordinance would make things worse. He felt that the ordinance, as it stood, had contributed to the closure of three establishments which resulted in a loss of jobs. Ms. Solomon inquired how many of the 27 complaints related to outdoor smoking areas in the past three years had been in regard to The Old Pad. Mr. McKerrow replied that two or three of the complaints had been about that establishment. He reviewed the changes to the Pad’s outdoor smoking area that had been implemented with iterations of the outdoor smoking ordinance. Ms. Solomon remarked that she did not hear many complaints regarding outdoor smoking. She was starting to wonder if this was more of a neighborhood issue that the council could possibly help involved parties to resolve. She noted the one meeting that had occurred and wondered if more meetings should be planned. She was not certain the ordinance should be amended in response to complaints about one establishment, adding that she supported waiting until changes made at the state level were known. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the council did not need to take action until what the state intended to do was known. She commented that the only change she had noticed with the advent of the ordinance was that people thanked her for helping to make it happen. She knew it was challenging to live next to an area with a lot of smoking and indicated her willingness to support changes in fence height or other alterations in order to ameliorate the situation. Mr. Zelenka felt it was important to recall why the ordinance was in place – it was a health issue. He averred that the whole point of requiring a space to be 75 percent open was to gain the airflow necessary to provide a safe working environment for the people who worked in those establishments. He related that he MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 2 Work Session also had heard a lot of compliments from people regarding the ordinance, especially people from out of town. Regarding noise levels, he asked why if the code said 10 p.m., there was no enforcement until 11 p.m. Mr. McKerrow responded that the EPD may have changed this. He said it often could be a low priority for the EPD. Mr. Zelenka asked how a noise violation was treated when it came from a business; would it be issued to the patrons violating the ordinance or would it be issued to the owner of the establishment. Mr. McKerrow replied that civil penalties had been issued to business owners for violations of the smoking ordinance. He was uncertain whether individuals were cited within a business establishment. He noted that if the noise ordinance under Chapter 6 was violated, both the person responsible for the violation and the property owner were notified. Mr. Zelenka echoed comments regarding a requirement for higher fences. He also was not certain that existing businesses should be made to meet further requirements. Mayor Piercy remarked that if this one situation was generating a lot of complaints then some extra effort should be made to resolve it. Ms. Taylor said the smoking ordinance was intended to protect people. She felt this particular issue was a byproduct of the ordinance which was harming people’s health inadvertently. She also thought the noise and litter were hazards to the neighbors’ mental health. She thought any time something was permitted, the effects of a project on its surrounding neighborhood should be assessed. She added that she had heard many complaints regarding the establishment in question. She averred that this was a nuisance and it was up to the government to step in and take care of it. Mr. Pryor appreciated the conversation. He reiterated his support for leaving the ordinance as it currently stood until the State’s actions were known. He noted his specific interest in formulating language that was targeted regarding security fencing. Mr. McKerrow responded that the administrative rule had an allowance for security fencing. Mr. Zelenka asked how specific the language regarding the fencing could be. Mr. McKerrow replied that the language could be very specific. Ms. Taylor thought the council should look into instituting penalties for business owners. Mr. McKerrow noted that Ms. Ortiz had mentioned “green buffers” and pointed out that a downtown establishment had such a buffer, but had been disallowed from having tall vegetation as it had been determined to violate the regulations governing air flow. Regarding Ms. Taylor’s comments pertaining to the permitting process, he assured her that the applications were reviewed thoroughly to ensure they were in compliance. He said occasionally they passed on advice to applicants based on past experience with neighborhood conflicts. He related that in the case of The Old Pad there were no current violations at that property which meant staff could provide advice but could not sanction the establishment. Mr. Zelenka asked how a new business would be handled so that another problem such as the one in question would not arise. Mr. McKerrow explained that presently if a permit came in for a smoking area the City would apply all of the current outdoor standards and the administrative rule. He said at present there was not a distance measure or a fence option. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 12:27 p.m. and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. B. WORK SESSION: Finance Plan for Property Acquisition Senior Development Analyst for the Community Development Division, Denny Braud, explained that the purpose for the presentation was to review the financing strategy for the Centre Court, the Washburn, and the Diamond lot properties. He intended to talk about the proposed use of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 108 loan and the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant for the acquisition of the properties. He provided a power point presentation entitled West Broadway Acquisitions Financing Plan, hard copies of which were provided to everyone present. th Mr. Clark asked staff to remind him of the appraised value of the lot at 12 Avenue and Oak Street. Mr. Braud replied that they had assumed a cost of approximately $30 per square foot. Mr. Braud explained that the HUD 108 program would allow the City to borrow up to five times the amount held for its annual federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation; in this case the City had received approval for just under $8 million. He said the City had also been approved for a $2 million BEDI grant that was required to be used with 108 funds on a prorated basis. He stated that the City could draw down $1 in grant funds for every $3.95 borrowed under the 108 program. He stressed that these were federal funds and must meet national objectives. He indicated that these projects would meet the objectives of eliminating slums and blight and creating jobs. Mr. Braud summarized the required Transactions for Beam Acquisitions. He stressed that Beam Development would pay the acquisition costs over time and not up front, because it would not be feasible for Beam to obtain conventional financing for the acquisition within the option period. He explained that the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) would use the proceeds from Beam’s repayment of the note to repay the 108 loan. He further explained that because the City ultimately pledged future CDBG allocations as security for the HUD 108 loan, it was essential that the City’s borrowing provided enough security that future CDBG funds would not be jeopardized. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, reviewed the details of the preferred funding plan for the acquisitions, a plan that would maximize the use of the HUD 108 loan and the BEDI grant funds. She underscored that this depended on HUD agreeing that this was “the way to go.” She stated that the budget request, scheduled for March 10, was based on a conservative funding scenario in which HUD did not approve the maximum amount the City hoped to get. She said this would mean the City would have to utilize $3 million in URA funds, rather than the $800,000 included in the preferred funding strategy. She explained that if the City Council and the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency approved this request, staff would present HUD with an application that would maximize the use of 108 funds. She stressed that in either scenario the total cost for the acquisition was the same, the only difference lay in funding sources. Ms. Cutsogeorge discussed the URA Financial Capacity given the failure of the City ballot measure. She said if HUD did not approve the use of the 108 loan without urban renewal backing the City would only have approximately $2 million left. She explained that any remaining money would be used first to meet any obligations left from the Beam project, noting that those costs were being negotiated. She stated that any funds that were left at that point could be used for other downtown priorities. She added that the project MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 4 Work Session th under current discussion was located at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street. She reviewed the timeline for acquisitions. Mayor Piercy asked if there was any difference in getting HUD approval for this project as opposed to the previous project, noting that it had contained a significant housing component. Mr. Braud replied that the City had been approved for the creation of a loan pool, defined by the $8 million in borrowing capacity and the $2 million BEDI grant. He said each individual project had to be approved by HUD in order to meet its underwriting criteria for a specific use. Mr. Clark observed that much of this was predicated on the agreement with Beam Development and that the security would be the real estate. Mr. Braud stated that because the City was borrowing from HUD it had to meet its underwriting criteria and that HUD’s intent was not to jeopardize the CDBG funds. He emphasized that this was also the City’s intent. He said the real estate would be a source of security for the loan and that the City was in the process of negotiating other security from Beam Development. Mr. Clark asked what the City’s protection was in case Beam Development did not follow through with its project. Mr. Braud responded that staff was trying to put all of the steps into place to be able to “100 percent assume” that the project was going forward. He indicated that the City’s intent was to sign an agreement with Beam Development that included a non-refundable deposit in the amount of 10 percent of the value of the property. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Braud confirmed that the length of the agreement had yet to be negotiated. He said the length of the HUD 108 loan was assumed to be 10 years and the City would attempt to structure its agreement with Beam along those lines. Mr. Clark asked if the project’s success was predicated on having Oregon Research Institute (ORI) for a tenant. Mr. Braud averred that ORI would be a “great tenant,” but Beam Development had indicated that they were talking to other tenants as well. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Braud clarified that the primary goal was to assist Beam Development in bringing its project to completion. Ms. Taylor asked how much had been spent in City attorney fees. Ms. Cutsogeorge estimated that attorneys had cost $50,000. Ms. Taylor asked why the City was not using tax increment funding. Mr. Braud responded that one of the “big carrots” was the possibility of grant funds. Ms. Taylor asked if there was enough money in the urban renewal funds if the grant did not work out. Mr. Braud explained that the City could likely accomplish the acquisition with the funds but the question was then whether there were enough resources for Beam to get the project off the ground. In response to questions from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Braud clarified that the City’s agreement was with HUD and the obligation was for the City to repay the loan; Beam’s agreement would be with the City. He explained that the BEDI funds would also be applied to the acquisition and Beam Development would repay the entire acquisition cost to the City directly. Mr. Zelenka asked why HUD would require URA backing for its loan. Mr. Braud replied that if one considered the current state of the property, it was vacant and there was no cash flow. He said the City would have to demonstrate some cash flow/debt service ratios. He stated that the question was whether the project could meet HUD’s underwriting criteria, which included debt service coverage and loan-to-value MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 5 Work Session ratios without additional security. He added that when the project was complete and there was cash flow the equation had potential to change. Mr. Zelenka asked what happened to the grant amount if the project required URA backing. Mr. Braud responded that the more security the City could provide the more it could borrow. Mr. Zelenka had presumed that there would be some level of subsidy from the City. Mr. Braud reiterated that the preferred method was to loan money rather than to grant money to or invest money in the project. He said the next level of participation to help Beam construct and reconstruct the Centre Court building would be some other financing mechanism, likely using the HUD 108 loan and/or the BEDI grant to put into it. Mr. Zelenka asked if the City could use the $2 million in the URA loan program for the project. Mr. Braud replied that the URA loan program was historically used for building improvements and projects within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Mr. Poling acknowledged that this hinged on the March 10 vote on the Supplemental Budget. He asked how firm this deadline was. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the City had to exercise its options by March 24 and the council break was set to begin on March 13. Mr. Poling observed that Ms. Taylor planned to be absent on March 10. He encouraged Ms. Taylor to participate by telephone rather than request the vote be deferred. Ms. Taylor asked if this vote could be conducted on March 12. Ms. Jones stated that the agenda for March 12 was “packed.” She underscored that it was the council’s decision on whether to defer the vote to that date, but the agenda items scheduled for that date were all time sensitive and required action. Ms. Taylor indicated that she would vote in favor. th Mr. Zelenka asked where the 10 Avenue/Charnelton Street project would be left if the URA funds were used to back the loan. He was concerned that it would be impacted so that no one in the downtown could be assisted through this mechanism. Ms. Ortiz remarked that it was the will of the people to keep the limit on the URA funds at the current level. th Ms. Taylor said the City should make the 10 Avenue/Charnelton Street property into a park. Mr. Zelenka commented that the Beam project seemed a little sketchy because the City did not necessarily have enough money to make it work. Ms. Solomon ascertained from Ms. Cutsogeorge that once the URA reached its debt limit the City could not collect anymore tax increment funds. Ms. Cutsogeorge stated that the money could be used to pay off another urban renewal project, such as the library, but could not be applied to new projects. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the Agency Director to include the budget transactions necessary to accomplish the property acquisition in the Supplemental Budget to be considered on March 10, 2008. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2008 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 9, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Evaluation City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said Recruitment and Selections Manager for the Human Resources Division, Alana Holmes, would be presenting the information. She indicated that most of the evaluations handed in to date, along with additional information received earlier in the week, had been distributed to the councilors. Ms. Holmes reviewed the attachments provided to councilors which included the completed evaluations from the council and the Civilian Review Board (CRB), the Police Auditor’s self-evaluation, and information on the salary scale for the position. She provided the council with a revised copy, including additional comments received to the present date. Mayor Piercy commended the effort Police Auditor Cristina Beamud had engaged in to create a new office. She appreciated the amount of work it had been and the commitment to the process that Ms. Beamud had exhibited. Ms. Beamud acknowledged the feedback she had received and expressed appreciation for all of the comments. She noted the desire on the part of some councilors for more reporting to the council and indicated her willingness to comply. Mayor Piercy listed some of the things on which Ms. Beamud had been rated, such as the setting up of the office, the hiring of staff, bargaining with the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA), and the development of the complaint intake process, among others. Mr. Clark indicated his preference for receiving reports every other month. He looked forward to having the Police Auditor’s Office more settled. He added his feeling that Ms. Beamud was in a unique position to help the Eugene Police Department (EPD). MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked to have a primer on the tracking system the auditor’s office used. She added her commendation for Ms. Beamud’s good work and thanked her. She had been pleased with the feedback and approved of the goals set for next year. She felt Ms. Beamud had skillfully navigated issues. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Holmes how the City handled step increases. She noted that Ms. Beamud’s hire date had been October 2006. Ms. Holmes replied that the City tried to issue merit raises based on the hire date, but was behind. She indicated that Ms. Beamud would receive any pay increase retroactive to her one- year anniversary. She said a one-step increase was typical of a ‘meets expectations’ rating. Mr. Pryor echoed the positive comments that had been expressed. He averred that Ms. Beamud had “really stepped in” and taken charge. He had been impressed by her accessibility, noting he was able to call her and get questions answered anytime. He observed that the CRB had not given Ms. Beamud any “bad marks.” Regarding compensation, he supported adhering to the step system consistent with the rest of the City. He acknowledged that it had been more than a year but said he was mollified by having the step increase be retroactive. Ms. Taylor said she did not fill out an evaluation form because she did not know enough about the auditor’s work to evaluate her. She requested quarterly reports. She wanted to know what complaints were submitted and which ones the office refused to address. Ms. Beamud reiterated her commitment to provide reports at regular intervals. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged the “tough job” Ms. Beamud had undertaken. He had also found her to be highly accessible; all of his questions had been answered as well. He had been impressed by the CRB’s comments. He concurred with the request to have reports from the Police Auditor’s office every other month. He believed that monthly reports would be too frequent and quarterly reports too few. He recommended the council schedule a discussion on what it wanted to see in such a report. Ms. Ortiz agreed with most of what had been said. She appreciated that Ms. Beamud undertook outreach to the communities. She also liked that Ms. Beamud placed statistics from the office on the Web. She was happy with her work, but she also wanted more reports on it. She supported granting a one-step merit increase retroactive to October 2007. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Ms. Beamud that she did not have any further questions or need for direction. Mr. Zelenka remarked that some concerns regarding Ms. Beamud’s “style” had been voiced. Ms. Beamud responded that it was one thing she had tried to work on. She noted that in her search for a Deputy Police Auditor she had been seeking someone to complement her. Mr. Zelenka asked what the timeline was for that hiring process. Ms. Beamud replied that she had interviewed applicants for the position one week earlier and made an offer. She said the background check would begin on the following day. Ms. Bettman attributed Ms. Beamud’s style to having been raised on the east coast. She added her hope that the motion would include language indicating that the second merit step increase would happen in October, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adjust the Police Auditor’s salary to Step 4 of her salary range and to make that step retroactive to her anniversary date and that the Po- lice Auditor’s salary should be increased to Step 5 after the next anniversary date in Octo- ber, 2008, independent of an evaluation. Mr. Clark agreed with much of what had been said around the table. He had some discomfort, however, with providing an automatic step increase without an evaluation. Ms. Taylor asked why they were skipping Steps 1 and 2. Mr. Zelenka clarified that Ms. Beamud had started at Step 3. Ms. Ortiz hoped the evaluation process would be completed in a timely fashion. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment that would commit to an evaluation process for Ms. Beamud prior to October 16, 2008, and grant the step-increase after that process. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman did not accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to include the language from his previously offered friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon found the notion of approving a raise without an evaluation process troubling. She under- scored that the council controlled the schedule and could direct staff to set a date and stick to it. Ms. Bettman thought an automatic step-increase was justifiable because the council was “half-way there.” Ms. Taylor agreed that October was coming up soon. She thought evaluations did get pushed out because of how busy the schedule tended to be. She averred that the council should try to do the evaluation sooner, adding that she would not support the amendment. Mr. Clark stressed that his motion had nothing to do with Ms. Beamud or the job she was doing; it was about fiscal prudence. He pointed out that they would not do this for another employee, such as the City Manager. Mr. Pryor observed that there were two competing interests – insuring that the Police Auditor received her merit increases on her anniversary date and that merit increases should be tied to performance evaluation. He said for this reason the two could not be done six months apart. He was amenable to engaging in another evaluation process in October. Mr. Zelenka was also amenable to the amendment. He had no problem with conducting an evaluation in six months. He urged his colleagues and staff to “stick to [their] guns” and make it happen on time. Ms. Holmes reminded the council that there was a commitment made at the March 10 work session that she and Ms. Beamud would meet with the CRB to flesh out some recommendations to bring back to the council for the next evaluation process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 3 Work Session In response to a question form Ms. Bettman, Ms. Holmes explained that the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increase was given automatically in the summer. The amendment passed, 4:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Zelenka asked when the other employee evaluations would be undertaken. Ms. Holmes replied that she would provide that information to the councilors. B. WORK SESSION: Lane County Budget Issues Mayor Piercy welcomed Faye Stewart, Chair of the Lane Board of County Commissioners, to the meeting and expressed the council’s appreciation for his willingness to join them. City Manager pro tem Jones explained that Mr. Stewart was present as a follow-up to the request for a report on the County budget made by the City Council at the Joint Elected Officials meeting held on February 12. Mr. Stewart thanked the council for the opportunity. He noted that he had provided hard copies of the information he would present to the councilors and ascertained they had received them. He said the board had asked staff to prepare three budgets, one with renewal of the “Save Our Rural Schools” funding which would hold services at the current level, one that averaged the drawdown that would happen over the course of three years that was included in the proposed Wyden-DeFazio four-year extension of the act, and one that addressed a $50 million loss to the budget. He explained that the money was specified so that approxi- mately $20 million went into the General Fund budget, comprising approximately one-third of that budget, and the remainder was allocated to the Public Works Department for road funds. He stated that the latter was mandated to be spent on the transportation system. Mr. Stewart reported that during the United Front lobbying effort in Washington, DC, also attended by Mayor Piercy and Ms. Taylor, he met with Senator Reid’s office and also with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s office. He had heard from both of them that they were not certain of the timeline for reauthorization of the funding or if it would be reauthorized at all. He related that concern had been expressed in the Speaker’s office regarding how long the need for this funding would continue, given that the act had been designed to be a transition from the timber harvest payments to something else. He stated that on the Senate side there was not a level of support in the Senate to attach the funding to any type of bill or pass it if it was included in a bill. He said since his trip, it looked like the only vehicle that could help the County prior to July 1 was the supplemental war funding, which was being worked on by both houses. The County had not heard confirmation that the funding would be proposed to be renewed as part of that budget, but the commissioners had been encouraged with recent news that the House of Representatives bill could include a one-year extension of the payments and the Senate bill could include the proposal for the four-year drawdown level of funding. He stressed that it was already April 9 and there was no bill moving forward at this time. He noted that at this same time last year the bill was in the house and had been voted on, though the President vetoed it. Mr. Stewart stated that the County was required to have a balanced budget by July 1, and because no funding was imminent they were forced to prepare to downsize the County services. He provided a report MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session on the potential ramifications. He related that because Lane County had $37 million in reserves for the Public Works Department transportation funds, the County would be able to keep those funds whole for three years. He added that in the 2007 session of the State legislature, Lane County had been able to gain $9.9 million in road funds. He said they were optimistic that in the 2009 legislative session the County would be able to gain more relief for road funds. Continuing, Mr. Stewart reported that there were no reserve funds that could accommodate the loss to the General Fund and it would have to downsize. He explained that approximately 67 percent of the General Fund went into the public safety system, the Lane County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO), the District Attorney (DA), Department of Youth Services (DYS) and associated programs. He said the remainder of the money went into the reserve fund at a level of 10 percent of the General Fund balance in order to keep the bond indebtedness and keep the bond rating up. He stated that the County was also mandated by law to maintain elections funding and to pay for assessment and taxation. He underscored that nearly two-thirds of the services funded by the General Fund were mandated by law and the County would no longer be possible to meet those mandates and maintain the budget after July 1. Mr. Stewart highlighted the draft budget in its current iteration, planning for no renewal of the funds, as follows: ? In fiscal year (FY) 07-08 the County had a $540 million budget. A budget of $455 million is projected for FY 08-09. ? In 2007 the County employed 1,507 people. In 2008 the workforce will be reduced by 12.5 percent or 188 employees. The County provided a ratio of 6.4 employees per 1,000 residents in 1979-80; the budget for FY08-09 will provide a ratio of 3.8 employees per 1,000 residents. Regarding the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), he reported the following budget reductions: ? The budget will be reduced by $26 million from $85 million, a “huge reduction in human services.” Approximately 40 employees will be laid off. ? The Commission on Children and Families will be reduced by $81,000 and 1.5 Full Time Equiva- lent (FTE) employees. He noted that the position specifically considered for reduction was the one dedicated to searching out and applying for grants. In 2007 this position brought $200,000 to the department. Regarding the budget for public safety he highlighted the following reductions: ? The LCSO budget will be reduced by $15 million, or 23 percent of its budget. This budget would potentially cause a reduction of 126 employees. ? Jail beds in the Lane County Jail would be reduced from 151 beds to 12. ? Sheriff’s patrol capability would be reduced from 24 hours to 20 hours per day. ? The DA’s Office will be reduced by $620,000, or nearly 7 percent. Staff would be reduced by seven and fewer cases will be prosecuted. ? The DYS will lose $1 million, almost 11 percent of its budget, eliminating 16 youth beds for in- house treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, as well as outpatient treatment programs. ? The Buckley House will no longer be funded and the service it provides for alcoholics will be lost. ? Veterans’ services funded by the County will be reduced. ? Funds for low-income housing will be reduced. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Stewart stressed that these cuts will have direct impacts on all of the citizens of the County and the citizens the council served in the City of Eugene. Mr. Stewart related that in the first attempt at prioritization of the list it had appeared that the program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) would have to be cut along with the communicable disease program and a health services program for high-risk pregnant women and infants. He explained that this would mean the County would have given up serving as the public health authority. He reported that the County Administrator had been able, in working with the budget, to find enough money to add those programs back. He noted that one consequence of relinquishing this authority was that the State would assume those responsibilities and then would bill the County for them. He averred that the County would then be in another losing situation. Mr. Stewart stated that the board would be engaging in a “pretty aggressive budget process” that would begin on April 29 and would continue in budget meetings to be held on Tuesdays and Thursdays through the end of May. He added that once the budget was prepared and ready to send to the commissioners for adoption, the board would engage in public outreach to the citizens in Florence, Cottage Grove, and Pleasant Hill in order to explain the budget to citizens. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Stewart for his presentation. He commented that he was “at a loss to see this coming to an unfortunate reality.” He asked what the City’s response could be. He wondered if the City could increase the number of beds it rented from the jail and how much this would cost. Mr. Stewart replied that the Sheriff was looking for ways to creatively keep more than 12 beds through the budget. He said one of the outcomes of the Joint Elected Officials meeting was a desire to conserve public safety. He had scheduled a meeting with the police chiefs, fire chiefs, district attorneys, mayors, and administrators to look at opportunities for ways to address this situation that could be presented to elected officials. He stated that there were different steps that could add beds back, with the first step adding 61 beds back to the jail for $150,000. He thought there would be opportunities for cities to step up and offer to buy beds. Mr. Clark related that he had spoken with Eugene Police Department (EPD) Chief Bob Lehner about the possibility of hiring some of the LCSO staff that would be laid off. He asked how many sworn officers the 126 employees included. Mr. Stewart responded that he was not certain. Mr. Clark wondered how many of those officers the City could absorb. Mr. Clark asked what date lay-off notices would have to be provided to staff. Mr. Stewart replied that he had been told that the process could not be started any later than June. Ms. Taylor asked why the grant writing position was not being retained for the Commission on Children and Families. Mr. Stewart responded that the commissioners and staff had been forced to look down the list as to where to make cuts and the determining factor was whether something generated revenue and paid for itself. He explained that though the grant writing position brought in money for programs, the position did not pay for itself. Ms. Taylor asked if there were any potential taxes that could be exacted. Mr. Stewart replied that the County could not raise taxes without a vote, it could only increase fees. He added that the timeline for placing a tax measure on the ballot was such that it would be impossible to put one on the May ballot. Ms. Taylor asked if private timber harvest could be taxed. Mr. Stewart did not know whether the County could impose such a tax legally. Ms. Taylor asserted that the money for those timber interests did not come MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 6 Work Session back to the County. Mr. Stewart responded that he believed the money did come back to the County through different programs but he was not certain of the amount. He said citizens had brought this before the board as a suggestion and a “colleague or two” of his had some interest in the item. Mr. Zelenka asked for a clarification on why, historically, the property tax rate in Lane County was low and why it could not be increased. Mr. Stewart confirmed that Lane County assessed taxes at a rate of $1.28 per $1,000 assessed value of real property while the majority of counties in Oregon assessed a rate of $3 to $4.50 per $1,000 assessed value. He explained that when Lane County could have increased its property tax rate it did not do so because no one had foreseen the drop in the timber economy and then Ballot Measures 47 and 50 had locked the rate at that level and made it so the only way it could be changed was through a vote. Mr. Zelenka asked how many counties there were in Oregon. Mr. Stewart replied that there were 36; Lane County was among the poorest, with only Curry and Josephine counties below it. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Stewart’s lobbying efforts at the State and federal levels to restore the funds. She observed that the federal revenue measure was for $47 million and asked if $7 million of it was dedicated for schools. Mr. Stewart responded that this was approximately correct, and noted that there was a little more funding because of Title 2 and Title 3 money that paid for the jail, though the Forest Work Camp was not included. He said in looking at what Lane County benefited from, it amounted to approximately $51 million and there would be approximately a $7 million loss to local schools. Ms. Bettman had heard that the FY 08-09 budget for the County would be cut by $83 million and asked why this amount was different from the $47 million loss in federal money. Mr. Stewart explained that the federal money was utilized to leverage matching funds in the DHHS. He stated that the County was only cutting the General Fund portion of Health and Human Services by approximately $3 million, but that money leveraged approximately $26 million. Ms. Bettman asserted that there were areas of revenue available to the County that the County was not receiving at the State level. She asked how the County felt about lobbying to remove the prohibition on recovering Systems Development Charges (SDCs) on public safety. Mr. Stewart responded that he had not personally engaged in a conversation about SDCs for public safety. He knew that the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), and specifically the 16 affected counties, were working hard to address the funding issues. He related that there was a task force convened by the Governor that was looking for revenue opportunities. He said the assessor’s organization had looked at how the County could increase money coming from the State through property tax interest rates and how more money could be leveraged to offset the cost of property tax collection in Eugene and Lane County. He underscored that the County was working closely with the State to see how it could lobby in the future to make up the difference. Ms. Bettman averred that the County had the ability to charge SDCs for transportation and parks but was not doing so. Mr. Stewart replied that the County was collecting SDCs for parks in rural Lane County. He said staff was working on transportation SDCs. Ms. Bettman asked how much revenue the County annually deferred for urban renewal districts, Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemptions (MUPTEs), and Enterprise Zones. Mr. Stewart responded that he did not know what that amount would be. Ms. Bettman declared that when she “did the research” for the urban renewal measure she had concluded that the County would lose $3 million per year. She noted that it had endorsed an Enterprise Zone that she MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 7 Work Session projected would defer approximately $475,000 per year in tax revenue. She wondered why the County had not “gotten serious” about looking at collecting “the revenue that was due” to it. Mr. Stewart replied that if Ms. Bettman was referring to the zone in Oakridge, it had been in place for 11 years, no revenue had been generated, and therefore there had been no property tax reduction. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Stewart for his presentation. She remarked that it was difficult to consider the impacts of the budget on our future. She averred that people did not realize that organizations like the Buckley House had an impact on the community. She wondered if the Buckley House had any grant writing opportunities. She underscored that Buckley House was the only place an uninsured person with an alcohol or drug problem could go to. She predicted that citizens would notice its closure because the people it treated would be out on the street. Ms. Ortiz asked if the County had considered selling any excess properties. Mr. Stewart replied that such sales had been discussed at a low level by the board. He underscored that it would not be prudent to sell an asset just to pay an operating expense. He said they were definitely discussing the concept of selling an asset to pay down a liability, which would lower operating costs. He stated that commissioners had given direction to administrative staff that if a payment was received after the fact, with the cuts already made, to consider whether money should be applied to pay down long-term debt with the goal of stabilizing the organization in the long-term. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the sale of an asset, such as the fair grounds, would not solve the long-term issue that the loss of the timber money presented. He understood the County was not just facing a “hump,” rather what was ahead was a “plateau that would go on for a long time.” He also understood that Washington, DC. could not be counted on. He observed that the discussion of SDCs should acknowledge that they could only be used for new capacity and could not be utilized to preserve existing programs. He did not know what ability the County would have to preserve what was in place with SDCs. Mr. Stewart affirmed that the constraints on SDCs were the same for the County as they were for the City. He stated that it would not be an area that could solve the operating deficiency without a legislative change. Mr. Stewart related that in the conversations he had in Washington, DC, it had been made clear to him that the program would go away and that it had never been intended as a long-term solution to the funding issue. He said it was stressed to him that if an extension was granted it would be short-term. He reiterated that if the County did receive the payment, it had to consider whether it would be more prudent to pay down the operating expenses to bring the County to a level where instead of continuing to make cuts, the organization could be stabilized. Mr. Clark commented that a lot of people had known “this day of reckoning” was coming. He averred that the only responsible thing to do would be to begin to look at this in creative, innovative ways. He felt the people had spoken clearly on potential revenue increases to the County and he did not believe this was an open question anymore. He wanted to focus on ways the City could help the County. He related that the DA’s office had indicated it needed 32 staff members for its typical case load, which was why they had ceased to prosecute many crimes. He asked whether the DA had given an indication of which things they would have to stop prosecuting with the further staff reduction of seven positions. Mr. Stewart replied that the board had not received this input from the DA at this time. Mr. Clark encouraged the council and staff to begin conversations about the sorts of things the City could take over in terms of prosecution. He related that the Human Right Commission (HRC) had held a scoping conversation on hate crimes and potential changes to the City code. He said out of this conversation had arisen the idea that if the City duplicated some of the State level statutes regarding hate crimes, its MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 8 Work Session prosecutor could begin to do some things at the City level that could potentially reduce the load on the County. He reiterated his request for information on what the City could buy in terms of jail beds and assimilating officers from the LCSO. City Manager pro tem Jones pointed out that City staff had been having some of those conversations with the County in an effort to explore how they could do things differently and creatively. She underscored that she did not want to send a message that the City of Eugene had ample resources to address the holes in the County budget. She said the City was not too far from the County and would have to look at how it would reshuffle the services it provided in a couple more years. Ms. Taylor asked if the County would consider changing its policy of approving Enterprise Zones and urban renewal districts in the face of the looming shortfall. Mr. Stewart replied that it was highly likely that if another one of those mechanisms came before the County it would be considered differently. He stressed that the County was a cooperator with its fellow jurisdictions and cities came to them proposing the development tool. Ms. Taylor did not perceive the county payments as a gift, rather she considered it an entitlement. She noted that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had voiced that same opinion. She asked how much of Lane County was federal land and generated no tax revenue. Mr. Stewart responded that 54 percent of Lane County was federally owned. Ms. Bettman accepted the fact that the County was facing a crisis. She wanted to find long-term solutions. She noted the failure of recent County revenue measures. She opined that she had seen a lot of expenditures on the part of the County that she questioned. She related that there had been over 900 appeals to property taxes and 300 of them had been granted, which was a net reduction in revenue. She felt the people collecting the appeals were getting an “astronomical amount of interest” on the tax money. She averred that this was a waste of money. In terms of SDCs, she reiterated that SDCs provide a funding source for new transporta- tion needs or parks. She declared that utilizing SDCs meant the money for such projects was not coming out of other funds. She also questioned the resolution the County was considering that would take on permitting and code enforcement in the urban transition area as she felt it would be an additional service for the County to provide that would cost the County money. Regarding the latter, Mr. Stewart clarified for Ms. Bettman that the Land Management Division was solely fee-based and the citizens applying for zoning changes and building permits, and other actions, would pay the cost to do so. He acknowledged concerns expressed by citizens regarding a potential adjustment in that agreement, adding that he would not say the County was ready to move on the matter. Mr. Zelenka asked if alternative funding sources for human services had been looked into. Mr. Stewart replied that they had not considered this at the board level but he had worked with Executive Director for the Department of Human Services, Steve Manela, on the possibility of a levy to help pay for the human services portion of the budget. Mr. Zelenka commented that he would support such a levy. Mr. Stewart said when facing a crisis one does what one can. He stressed that the income tax measure that had been posed had been based on the critical need to provide essential services. He had wanted to fix the whole problem at one time. He stressed that if the cuts came, the County would have to suffer because there would not be a “miracle fix” for it. He predicted that what would happen was that the County would assess whether there would be any help from the State and then how to move forward from there. He thought they would continue to work through the federal government with our congressional leaders to get the payment MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 9 Work Session for the services provided on those lands. He said the other point that would have to be addressed was how they could incrementally go to the citizens to replace some of the losses ahead. Mr. Zelenka thought this was an appropriate way to look at the budget issue. He opined that it was “not an enviable place to be.” Mr. Stewart thanked the councilors for their thoughts and ideas. He said he would take them back to the Board of County Commissioners. He was also thankful that the council grasped the level of concern as to what was going to happen and that they wanted to help. He understood that no one could stand up “with a bag full of money” but he thought there were ways to change processes and look for efficiencies that would lead to a solution. Mayor Piercy concurred. She said while the different jurisdictions had their own budgets and their own governments they still “all lived together.” She thanked Commissioner Stewart. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council/Urban Renewal Agency Executive Session Sunstone Room – Downtown Library th 100 West 10 Avenue—Eugene, Oregon May 5, 2008 8 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency to order. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Piercy called the Urban Renewal Agency into executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660(2)(e). The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 5, 2008 Page 1 Work Session