Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: June 11, 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. November 19, 2007, Public Hearing, November 26, 2007, Work Session, November 26, 2007, City Council Meeting, February 25, 2008, City Council Meeting, April 14, 2008, Work Session, and May 13, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A.November 19, 2007, Public Hearing B.November 26, 2007, Work Session C.November 26, 2007, City Council Meeting D.February 25, 2008, City Council Meeting E.April 14, 2008, Work Session F.May 13, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080609\S0806092A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 19, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Annexation and Withdrawal Procedures; Amending Sections 2.212, 9.7055, 9.7205 and 9.8035 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Ex- isting Sections 9.7800 to 9.7885 of that Code; Adding New Sections 9.7800 Through 9.7835 and Sections 9.8115 Through 9.8121 to that Code; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing for an Effective Date. Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner, provided an overview of the ordinance to establish annexation procedures for the City of Eugene in anticipation of the abolishment of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission on January 1, 2008. He said a preponderance of the ordinance addressed procedural requirements and in drafting the ordinance staff took care to assure that the council's established policies and procedures related to annexations remained in place. Mr. Nystrom stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the ordinance and was recommending approval of the ordinance, with some modifications. He said a list of the recommended modifications was included as Attachment C in the agenda packet. He said the most notable recommenda- tion was to increase the public noticing requirements. He drew the council's attention to his memorandum of November 8, 2007, which described staff responses to comments during the council's October 31 work session as well as those sections of the ordinance that the council had discretion to amend. He said staff was proposing a two-track process for annexations, which would give the council full discretion to decide whether to approve annexations through a resolution or to forward them to a public hearing process. He concluded by noting that requests to extend the record had been received. Ms. Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, noted that the abolishment of the Boundary Commission was perceived as an emergency, but he perceived a greater emergency. He requested that the council direct staff to implement a two- to three-hour free parking in downtown Eugene between Thanksgiving and Christmas to promote a livelier downtown and support downtown businesses. Ron Funke , 2595 Charnelton Street, Eugene, a land use planner focusing primarily on the City of Eugene and Lane County, expressed concern that when the bill abolishing the Boundary Commission passed the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing Legislature, ORS 199 was removed. He said the City had not taken a position on the status of the Boundary Commission and he felt that was a mistake, particularly with respect to not allowing noncontiguous annexations. He illustrated on a map parcels that were .4 acres or larger and could be partitioned into two lots. He said those parcels were in an area considered urbanized land and to not allow further density to develop naturally went against Statewide Planning Goals and growth management policies. He said reincorporating ORS 199 into the annexation legislation would allow the property to develop in accordance with standard practices. Zachary Vishanoff, Ward 3, Eugene, questioned whether the ordinance would allow for a satellite urban village in the middle of nowhere and if growth could occur more easily if the ordinance was passed. He felt the City did not understand public opinion regarding growth and citizen groups should be formed around issues such as parks and the greenway and the urban growth boundary (UGB). He said the groups should be composed of individuals from a wide range of background to assure a balanced representation and avoid extremes. James R. Seaberry, 1475 Green Acres Road, Eugene, read a portion of the testimony from Representative Chris Edwards supporting legislation to disband the Boundary Commission and opposing annexation of River Road and Santa Clara properties. He stated he would mail copies of the full testimony to councilors. John A. Dotson, 2447 Canterbury Street, Eugene, reviewed a history of annexations under the Boundary Commission and the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Eugene and Lane County, which allowed the City to administer the County permitting process. He said the City encouraged ad hoc annexation and semi-voluntary annexations occurred; citizens inside the UGB had redress through the Boundary Commission, but that would no longer exist after January 1, 2008, and the continuance of the intergovernmental agreement presented a major problem. He said citizens would have nowhere to take their concerns for review. Lauri Segel, 642 Charnelton Street, Eugene, Goal 1 Coalition, expressed concern that the Metro Plan was being marginalized. She said there were inconsistencies between the proposed code and the plan caused by abolishment of the Boundary Commission and ORS 199, but the position of staff was that this would be addressed at a later date. She said the most significant growth management policy with which the code was inconsistent was Policy 2.C.12.a-c, which allowed noncontiguous annexations. She said Metro Plan review and, if necessary, amendments, should be initiated if changes in the basic assumptions in the plan occurred; ORS 222 replacing the assumptions of ORS 199 constituted such a change. She pointed out that the Metro Plan citizen involvement policies did support better notice provisions. She supported the proposed 30-day notice provision and public hearings for all annexations. Rob Handy, 455 1/2 River Road, Eugene, submitted written comments on behalf of the River Road Community Organization. He commended staff and the Planning Commission for their work on the ordinance and agreed with the commission's recommendations. He asked for definitions of "territory" and "double- and triple-majority." He questioned whether expedited procedures were allowed under ORS 222 and whether the ordinance should include language from the council's resolution related to street and right- of-way annexations. He also asked about impacts on special districts, such as park districts, when properties were withdrawn, as well as the implications for comprehensive and functional plans. Kate Perle, Eugene, 4740 Windover Street, Santa Clara, speaking for the Santa Clara Community Organization, requested additional changes to the proposed ordinance to reflect the recommendations of the Planning Commission, specifically regarding improved public noticing. She also encouraged a modified two-track process that would require public hearings for any City-modified private annexation application, MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing including rights-of-way and contiguous public land, and involve any property over two acres in size. She said using a batch approach to the public hearing process would be efficient. Ms. Piercy closed the hearing and thanked those who spoke. Ms. Taylor commended the persistence and hard work of Crest Drive neighborhood residents and urged the council's support for 9-foot travel lanes. She said that bicycles could use the sidewalks planned for pedestrians, especially for uphill travel. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the record to November 30, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked if the council should initiate a Metro Plan amendment limited to deleting references to the Boundary Commission. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that there were other issues arising from Senate Bill 417 that should be addressed and if the council wished to initiate a Metro Plan amendment process, staff could return with information on what amendments were necessary. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to initiate a Metro Plan amendment to address issues arising from Senate Bill 417. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman stated that the historic intent of extra-territorial extensions of water and sewer service was not general "business as usual;" they were reserved for the transition area inside the UGB, with some very specific exceptions. She wanted language in purpose and applicability that included a reference to Resolution 2643, which would also need to be amended to remove references to the Boundary Commission. She said 9.8117 should be revised as follows: "…located outside of the city limits, but within the urban growth boundary, with the exception of Lane Community College campus as pertains to water." Mr. Clark thanked the Santa Clark Community Organization for its comments. He asked if the organiza- tion's proposed amendments could be accommodated. Mr. Nystrom said in general there were no major concerns as the suggestions were feasible options. Ms. Bettman asked if 9.8121(2) allowed extensions to noncontiguous properties under the criteria set forth in EC 9.7825. Ms. Jerome said the provision's intent was to indicate that if a property could be annexed, it should be annexed first and the criteria included noncontiguous annexations. She said the language could be clarified to address a stronger policy against that type of annexation. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum with further explanation of that provision. She asked about the meaning of 9.8121(8)(b). Mr. Nystrom replied that the provision referred to several specific locations where water districts had been dissolved and Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had assumed those responsibilities. He said the Santa Clara and River Road water districts were still active within the UGB. Ms. Bettman pointed out that 9.8121(8)(a) did not reference a method for determining a health hazard. Mr. Nystrom said staff was working from existing policies and there was no precedent. He said staff would focus on clarifying qualifications of projects within the UGB and those that were not otherwise ineligible for annexation due to the fact they were noncontinguous. He said that would focus back on policies that were already in place and help address Ms. Bettman's concerns. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 3 Public Hearing Ms. Bettman said language in Resolution 2643 on the referral of applications related to dissolved water districts from the Boundary Commission to the City Council would need to be amended. Mr. Zelenka asked staff to reiterate the City's policy on island and involuntary annexations. Mr. Nystrom said the City had a policy that it could pursue street annexations when it did not create islands in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Ms. Jerome said the statutes identified three consensual scenarios; those did not require 100 percent of owners and electors in an area in order to be considered. She said the ordinance did not provide any additional scenarios and did not include implementation of the statutes on annexing islands, which were by their nature typically involuntary. She said health hazard annexations were rare and it was unlikely the City would initiate one; if that should happen, the statutes would be relied upon. Mr. Zelenka asked staff to respond to Mr. Funke's testimony that approximately 1,200 houses would be unable to be built in River Road/Santa Clara as a result of SB 417. Mr. Nystrom said he thought the intent was to project the number of units on properties of a certain size that could be divided. He said under the next statutes, there would be properties in River Road/Santa Clara that might not be eligible for annexation, but it would take more extensive research to estimate the impact in terms of housing units. Ms. Bettman stated that Lane County had delegated authority for decisions to the Boundary Commission and asked if it was necessary for the County to delegate that authority to the City because of the new statutes. Ms. Jerome pointed out that the State created the Boundary Commission, not Lane County, and with the removal of the Boundary Commission, decisions reverted along jurisdictional lines to the municipal government with authority over an area. She said the UGB was a dividing line; outside of the UGB, Lane County was the decision-maker. Ms. Bettman felt that roles were clear when there was a Boundary Commission and without a commission there should be a declaration or resolution from the County concurring that the City had the authority to make decisions, otherwise the City was vulnerable legally. She asked staff to research that issue. Ms. Jerome replied that she had confirmed with the County's legal counsel that there were questions regarding cities' rights to entertain applications to annex; extra-territorial extensions were more difficult to parse out and that was being researched in conjunction with other cities in Lane County. She said that any concerns that arose would be related to the council. Ms. Bettman advocated for 750 feet for notification, inclusion of neighborhood organizations in all mailings and postings on the site. She was also in favor of batching public hearings. Referring to Table 9.7820, Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones, she asked if there were differences in permitted uses and densities between the Eugene zones and urbanizable land zones. Mr. Nystrom replied that within the UGB, equivalent zoning districts were identical. Ms. Bettman indicated she would submit the rest of her questions in writing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 4 Public Hearing 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Fuel Space Heating Devices, and Amending Section 6.250 of the Eugene Code, 2971. City Manager Pro Tem, Angel Jones, said relevant information was included in the agenda packet and Ms. Taylor might have additional information to offer. Ms. Taylor said the ordinance had been requested by the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to revise the Eugene Code to comply with new Federal guidelines for air quality. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt Council Bill 4961, an ordi- nance concerning solid fuel space heating devices. Mr. Clark asked if the ordinance would apply to fireplaces as well as woodstoves. Ms. Taylor said that it would. Mr. Clark understood that the ordinance would lower the acceptable particulate matter by almost half and double the number of red and yellow days. Ms. Taylor agreed it would create more red and yellow days. She pointed out it was only advisory. Mr. Clark noted that a violation of a red day could carry a fine of up to $500. He was not comfortable voting for the ordinance until he had more clarity on the issue of fireplaces and fines. Ms. Taylor withdrew her motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 5 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 November 26, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy shared a letter from visitors from Eugene Sister City, Kakegawa, Japan, expressing thanks for the hospitality shown during their recent visit. She announced that Broadway at Willamette Street had opened with decorative concrete repairs. Mr. Pryor reported that the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC), in which both Lane Transit District (LTD) and the City were involved, had met on November 20, 2007, to continue with its organizational and work plan development. Mr. Zelenka announced that the University of Oregon basketball arena planning process had begun. He said the university was beginning to solicit input from impacted neighborhoods and was developing a process that would consider neighborhood concerns. He asked the council to postpone action on the West Broadway project, as he would be unable to attend the November 27, 2007, meeting. Mr. Clark reported on his attendance at an Oregon Toxics Alliance town meeting on field burning. He said the Human Right Commission (HRC) Accessibility Subcommittee had been working on the issue of taxis and he hoped to see a solution in the form of an ordinance amendment come before the council. He was pleased with the results of a recent HRC process retreat. He appreciated a presentation by the Eugene Police Department on a very successful homeless shelter and program in Canada and he had recommended a presentation to the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness. Ms. Taylor reported on her attendance at a National League of Cities (NLC) conference in New Orleans and encouraged people to visit that city. She said the NLC's Human Development Steering Committee had reaffirmed its interest in immigration. She said an historic preservation workshop discussed federal tax breaks for remodeling of historic buildings and she had seen several good examples of redevelopment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling said the City of Coburg had received grant and loan funding for a new wastewater treatment plant and hoped to complete it in two years. He conveyed Mayor Judy Volta's thanks for United Front's support of the funding request. Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:40 p.m. Ms. Ortiz reported that the Human Rights Symposium at the University of Oregon was well-attended and she felt her participation was very worthwhile. She said the Police Commission would be forwarding a recommendation that the police department use crisis intervention training and have enough officers trained to provide 24-hour coverage. She said she would be attending a November 28 summit on the over- representation of minority youth in the prison system and would provide a report to the council. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones reported she would be presenting a status report on Eugene's preparation for the 2008 Olympic Trials to USA Track and Field officials. B. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with Lane Transit District Board of Directors Mayor Piercy welcomed members of the Lane Transit District (LTD) Board of Directors. LTD Board Chair Gerry Gaydos and board members Mike Eyster, Mike Dubick, Greg Evans, and General Manager Mark Pangborn introduced themselves. Mr. Pangborn indicated the board wished, time permitting, to discuss four items: West Eugene transporta- tion, the Franklin Boulevard project, transit ridership and service performance, and the Commuter Solutions program; the first two items were of greatest importance. Tom Schwetz of LTD provided an overview of the West Eugene transportation project, which would result in identification of the third EmX corridor. He said that bus rapid transit (BRT), or EmX, was designated as the region's choice for high-capacity transit in TransPlan and regional transportation plans. He reviewed the agenda packet materials, including the proposed purpose and need statement, proposed goals and objectives and preliminary process and timeline. He pointed out that well over 1,000 comments had been received on the proposed Purpose and Need Statement, Goals and Objectives and alternative alignments. He anticipated the scoping process would conclude in February 2008, and a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) would be issued in early 2009, with a final statement in 2010. He said service was projected to begin in the corridor in 2014 or 2015. He stressed that at this point in the process the intent was not to select an alignment, but rather to identify a set of viable alternatives to move into a more extensive analysis process. Mr. Schwetz used a series of aerial photographs to illustrate the potential West Eugene corridor options and the varying characteristics along the alternatives. He said there were a number of environmental concerns— both natural and built—that would warrant consideration and analysis. He said the scoping process would result in identification of proposed alignments for further study. He said the environmental study and alternatives analysis considered three elements of the alternatives: modal alternatives, alignment alternatives and link alternatives; those could be mixed and matched during the analysis process. He said along with build alternatives there were transportation system management (TSM) alternatives (scaled down EmX service) and a no-build alternative. He asked for feedback on whether all of the alignment considerations had been included. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy pointed out materials from the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) that had been distributed to the council. Mr. Poling asked for confirmation that the alternatives were not limited to those identified in Mr. Schwetz's presentation and that new options could be considered during the process. He expressed concerns about the West 11th Avenue route, which he felt faced the same challenges as a Coburg Road route. He was reviewing reports from the West Eugene Extension Corridor Committee, but scheduling conflicts had made it difficult to attend meetings. Ms. Bettman questioned the purpose of selecting a corridor from among such a broad range of alternatives. She confirmed with Mr. Schwetz that West 18th Avenue was not being considered. She thought that each alternative would have a different purpose and need, and saw no reason for a route along the Amazon Channel. She asked when LTD wanted decisions from the council on specific provisions of the plan and what disposition would be made of the council's comments from this meeting. Mr. Schwetz referred to the preliminary process and timeline included in the agenda packet. He said the major decision point for the council would occur when the results of the environmental analysis were available; at that time the council would be asked for its selection of a preferred alternative. He said that decision would involve the council, the LTD Board and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He said there were points in the process preceding that decision at which LTD would provide project updates to the council. He said the LTD Board would consider adoption of the Purpose and Need Statement and Goal and Objectives at its December 19, 2007, meeting; the board would identify alternative alignments for further environmental analysis at its February 2008 meeting. Ms. Bettman expressed concern with the amount of leeway in the process, which she felt could result in the council not selecting any of the alternative alignments as the preferred alignment. Ms. Ortiz said she was also concerned with the purpose of having BRT in West Eugene and the ultimate goal of the project. She was hopeful there would be feasible alternatives as she supported mass transit, but did not want it to occur at the cost of constituents' quality of life. Mr. Schwetz said one of the goals was to relieve commuter traffic from the west. Ms. Solomon asked if an Amazon Channel alignment would be a bus-only lane or allow other traffic. Mr. Schwetz said a bus-only lane was envisioned. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Schwetz said that an extension of West 5th Avenue to Bertelsen Road was a problem because of intervening wetlands. Ms. Solomon pointed out that the entire area had wetlands and some mitigation could be done. Mr. Schwetz agreed there would be tradeoffs with any of the options and the process would allow mixing and matching alternatives to achieve the goal of the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) process to mitigate the project's impacts. Ms. Taylor asked if the alternative alignments being considered were under discussion because there was a large demand for service in those spots. Mr. Schwetz responded that the concentration of demand was along West 11th Avenue, particularly west of Garfield Street. Ms. Taylor asked if Highway 99 would be considered as a corridor. Mr. Schwetz said it was not under consideration at this point. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked if the council could provide comments on the Purpose and Need Statement. Mr. Schwetz replied that he would provide the council with an updated version, based on public comments to date. Regarding the Purpose and Need Statement, Ms. Bettman said if the purpose was to create a commuter route for Veneta or capture "commuter sheds" from west or northwest Eugene, that should be clearly stated and ridership gains analyzed. She hoped LTD would respond to the public input it had received. She asked if the cost was estimated at $50 million. Mr. Schwetz said that was the estimate, but that would be refined during the planning process. Ms. Bettman asked how much match was required. Mr. Schwetz said it was likely to be a 40 percent match. Referring to the LTD annual report, Ms. Bettman opined that LTD did not have the capacity to meet increased demand for transit services because of the amount of money that had to be generated locally to invest in the West Eugene project. She said the Purpose and Need Statement should include a comparison of how investing that money in service instead of the project would impact ridership and capacity. Mr. Poling said that a lot of people coming in from west of Eugene added to the congestion on West 11th Avenue. He said it did not make sense to oppose efforts to alleviate traffic problems in West Eugene, reduce dependency on automobiles, and encourage use of mass transit. He liked the concept of a Park and Rider facility at the end of the corridor and noted that the path along Amazon Channel was already used for more than recreation purposes; many people commuted to work along it. Mayor Piercy pointed out the WEC's recommendation on the Purpose and Need Statement, which identified a number of purposes for the project. Ms. Bettman said the Amazon Channel would increase the distance that people had to walk and EmX already increased that by more widely spaced stops. She asserted that was a reduction in service. She thought the WEC's recommendation was an improvement, but did not take into account that those benefits should be realized without negatively impacting progressively improving service in the rest of the system. She asked if any of the alternatives involved the removal of street trees. Mr. Schwetz replied that the process had not yet reached that point. Mr. Pangborn said that issue was addressed with the first EmX corridor as there were historic trees along the route. He pointed out that the alignment was designed to protect the trees. He affirmed Mr. Schwetz's statement that it was too early to know the specifics of any of the potential alignments. Mr. Evans said the purpose of the project was to expand LTD's capacity to provide service to the commu- nity and EmX provided a unique opportunity to do that on several levels. He said LTD was rapidly approaching saturation in terms of the ability to deliver service, particularly with traffic congestion in West Eugene. He said part of the problem was that planning and development occurred without considering mass transit in the equation, resulting in a focus on the automobile and making it more difficult for transit to reach its potential ridership. The scoping process would examine a range of alternatives in order to identify the best alternative for the community. He said there were traffic problems in northwest Eugene that were approaching gridlock and transit was the only alternative to alleviate that. He emphasized that transit should be part of a total transportation solutions package to move people around the community. Mayor Piercy remarked that the City was also looking at short-term traffic solutions with the West Eugene corridor study. She pointed out that the WEC had recommended including objectives related to neighbor- hoods, redevelopment, connections to future routes and corridors, and many other issues important to the community. She also noted three additional route alternatives were suggested for consideration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked why Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was not listed as a potential participating agency on undergrounding utilities as part of the Franklin Boulevard redesign project. Mr. Pangborn said that was an oversight as LTD had worked closely with EWEB on undergrounding utilities during the Franklin Boulevard corridor project. Mr. Evans addressed the costs of EmX and BRT. He said a light rail system, for which Eugene was not suitable, would cost $30 to $50 million per mile, compared to $6 million per mile for BRT. Mr. Pangborn said there appeared to be a perception that the fixed route service had suffered as a result of EmX and the funds spent on EmX could have been spent on service. He said the matching funds for the Franklin and Pioneer Parkway corridors was money the LTD Board had reserved during the 1990s with a one-time allocation earmarked for BRT. He said that LTD would be asking the State for matching funds as TriMet had during the last legislative session. Mr. Pryor commended LTD for working to make mass transit part of the solution to traffic problems in West Eugene and providing the council with a progress report. He said it would be challenging to find an acceptable corridor, but the process would not be abandoned just because it was difficult. He was pleased with the number of people involved in attempting to find a creative solution. He said it would short circuit that process to have specifics of a route at this point. Mr. Zelenka said one of the things learned from the first phase of EmX was that acquisition of right-of-way was critically important. He said that would likely be a consideration in selection of an alternative because once Eugene reached a size where it was feasible, a light rail system would replace the bus. He supported the WEC recommendations. He was also concerned about the potential habitat impact of a route along the Amazon Channel. Public Works Director Kurt Corey remarked that the Franklin Boulevard redesign and Walnut Station mixed use center were closely related. He said the Franklin Boulevard project's purpose was the redesign and reconstruction of that street from the Springfield Bridge to the Ferry Street Bridge, using the concept of a multi-way boulevard, including doubling EmX lanes. He said the Walnut Station mixed use center project was currently before the Planning Commission and staff was available to answer questions. Ms. Bettman asked to what extent the Franklin Boulevard project would impact the existing BRT route and investment in infrastructure. Mr. Pangborn said the existing route would not be changed. Mr. Corey said the staff recommendation was to leave open the option of adding double lanes where they did not currently exist; the concept was to augment and expand what had been built to date. Ms. Bettman supported the multi-use boulevard concept and thought it would also be useful on West 11th Avenue, west of Garfield Street, if West 11th Avenue became the EmX corridor. Mr. Zelenka commented that the Fairmount neighborhood was very involved in the project and commended staff for taking into consideration neighborhood feedback and incorporating that into the process. Mayor Piercy said the project could result in a new entry to the community and she supported the multi-use boulevard concept. She stated that she now used EmX frequently and was interested in converting more people to its use. Mr. Zelenka hoped that the Franklin Boulevard project would also result in the millrace becoming a functional park and recreation area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Andy Vobora of LTD announced that ridership levels were record-setting, both for EmX and systemwide. He said EmX ridership had far exceeded expectations and continued to grow each month. He said systemwide ridership was at capacity during peak periods and LTD was taking measures to alleviate that. He said the success of school programs had an impact on that. He said LTD did not have the capacity to add more hours of service. Mayor Piercy thanked LTD for continuing the school bus pass program, which she felt helped to build future ridership. She asked how many people had bus passes. Mr. Vobora said that 60-75,000 people in the community had group passes. Ms. Ortiz asked what discount was given to nonprofit agencies. Mr. Vobora replied that private nonprofit agencies received a 50 percent discount. He said the current limit per program was $350 per month and LTD currently discounted about $90,000 per year to the 110 participating program. He said the cap had been extended several times by the board because of increasing need and another extension could always be considered, although the limitation tended to be related to an agency's available resources. He applauded the City for its contribution of $50,000 to the program, which helped many agencies increase capacity. In response to questions from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Vobora said ridership on the Franklin corridor was 60 percent greater than it was previously on the fixed route system. He said that the loss of revenue because of free EmX service was minimal because 80 to 85 percent of the riders on that route had passes. Mr. Zelenka noted that statistics showed accidents between buses and cars on that route were declining and asked if that was expected to continue. Mr. Vobora said the accident rate was actually lower on that route after an initial period of the public's adjustment to the new service and traffic configurations. Ms. Bettman did not think it was productive to dismiss rail service because no overarching cost benefit analysis of rail and BRT had been done. She said dismissing rail on the basis of the per mile cost was unrealistic because rail systems accrued numerous benefits and cost less to operate. She asserted that rail was a viable solution in the future, even though the community had chosen to invest in BRT. Ms. Taylor stated she had attended a workshop on sustainability and a participant from Charlotte, North Carolina, had described that city's recent positive experience with light rail and economic development and plan to add streetcars to the system. Mr. Zelenka pointed out he was not dismissing light rail, but since every city with a light rail system was substantially bigger than Eugene it did not appear to be financially feasible at this time. He asked if LTD had conducted an analysis of light rail versus BRT for a community of Eugene's size. Mr. Pangborn said there had been considerable analysis at the national level. He said any mass transit system that was built in Eugene required federal funding and LTD had been told explicitly by the Federal Transit Administration that it had concerns about Portland's ability to sustain a light rail system; Eugene would not begin to qualify for federal funds for light rail and would need to seek another alternative. He said that resulted in BRT as the mass transit choice. Mr. Zelenka said his point was that Eugene was just too small to have a light rail system, but right-of-way acquisition for BRT could set the stage for light rail 20 to 30 years in the future when the population was large enough to support a rail system. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Gaydos emphasized that LTD's goal was to create a successful system for the community, whether it was BRT, light rail or some other future option. He said the LTD Board had exhibited great leadership in responding to the community's need for transportation options. Mr. Evans pointed out that large cities such as Cleveland, Dallas and Tampa were adding BRT to their light rail systems, demonstrating that a combination of different transit modes could work well together. He said that BRT made the best sense for the Eugene/Springfield area at the present. Mr. Dubick commented that one of the purposes of the LTD Board and the council's decisions was to alleviate congestion and minimize carbon emissions associated with growth. He said it was better to plan for growth than react to growth, and it was necessary to find a way to get more cars off the road in a way that was environmentally sensitive. Mr. Eyster was appreciative of Mr. Pryor's endorsement. He said it was important to the board to know that the council was supportive because LTD was not interested in trying to impose something on the commu- nity. He hoped the council would endorse a direction to assure the partnership between the City and LTD in planning for the future. Mr. Zelenka asked staff to provide population statistics on cities with light rail systems. Ms. Solomon emphasized, with respect to the EmX extension, that doing nothing in West Eugene was not an option. Mr. Clark said he would be watching with great interest as plans developed. Ms. Bettman thought it was premature to ask for the council's support until more information was available. Mr. Poling stated he was supportive of LTD's efforts and the process at this point. Ms. Ortiz concurred with Mr. Poling's remarks. Mayor Piercy thanked the LTD Board and staff for participating in the joint meeting. She hoped such meetings would occur on a regular basis. She noted that many communities around the country viewed EmX as a pilot program as it was an interesting innovation that combined BRT with the feel of a light rail system. She said that if it was successful, it would be replicated in other communities. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 26, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 7:38 p.m. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - Innovations in American Government Finalist Award: Landbanking Program for Affordable Housing Mayor Piercy introduced Stephanie Jennings, Housing Finance Analyst for the Community Development Division, and asked her to explain the award. Ms. Jennings presented the award from the Harvard University Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation. She explained that the City had received a $10,000 grant to help other communities emulate and replicate its landbanking program. There was a round of applause. Ms. Jennings stated that the City had purchased its first landbank site in 1979 and since then over 90 acres of land had been acquired for the purpose of developing affordable housing. She said over 500 units of affordable housing had been constructed and another 200 units were underway. Mayor Piercy remarked that a good home was a critical foundation to school, work, and life but there were too many people in Eugene who did not have access to affordable housing. Certificates of appreciation were awarded to John VanLandingham, Norton Cabell, Rob Bennett, Robin Johnson, Sunnae Murray, Terry McDonald for St. Vincent DePaul, Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation, Jim McCoy for the Housing and Community Service Agency, Sandy Halonen for the Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation, Mel Menegat for the Eugene Water & Electric Board and Lane County. - 2007 Annual Fitness Leadership Award: Randall Rogers, Kidsports Mayor Piercy presented the 2007 Annual Fitness Leadership Award, which is issued annually by the Oregon Governor’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, in recognition of individuals who make significant contributions in the area of physical fitness, to Randall Rogers, Managing Director of Kidsports. She spoke glowingly of Mr. Rogers’ work to improve the quality of life for the youth in this area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting Additionally, Mayor Piercy stated that the City of Eugene had been honored for promoting health and fitness through its recreation programs. Patty Prather, Recreation Programmer for the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, accepted the award. They received a round of applause. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, said pressing issues in the City of Eugene that needed to be addressed included downtown development, the budget, the City’s sustainability mission, and the reputation of the City’s police officers. He suggested that police officers be assigned to walking beats. He thought this would decrease maintenance costs on the patrol vehicles and on streets by reducing vehicle use. He felt that having the police become more of a presence would deter crime downtown and make the area more attractive to businesses, customers, and developers. He averred that having officers on foot would provide an opportunity for people who did not trust the police to interact with them and gain trust. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, declared that the citizens did not want to increase spending for the urban renewal project, as evidenced by the recent vote. She likened this to a mandate for more incremental development. She believed that urban renewal would take money from other things. She opined that the approach adopted by KWG Development Partners was risky. She thought it was a gamble to rely on larger franchised stores to pay higher rents to do business. She averred that chain stores were “notorious” for leaving when the numbers “did not pencil out.” She agreed that “something” needed to happen downtown. She supported moving forward and getting “some realistic projects” on the table. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, said he had been attending council meetings for months and had been impressed by the evidence he had seen of the council’s involvement. He read a segment from The Register- Guard regarding downtown redevelopment and the recent vote in opposition of the increase in debt threshold for the urban renewal district. He noted that Mayor Piercy had been quoted in the newspaper as having said that everyone wanted the downtown reinvigorated. He disagreed. He believed that the majority of people did not care about the downtown. He remarked that the “spending campaign” needed to stop as there was a $50 million Federal shortfall ahead. He did not see much concern about the shortfall on the part of the council. He observed that there was a lot of talk of buying property to resell, buying property to save the headwaters of Amazon Creek, building a new City Hall, buying new land to add to another park, and constructing a new police building. He asked when the council would face the shortfall and when it would “face the fact” that most people did not want what the council wanted. He said he was more concerned about the number of people who wanted to kick their drug habits but there were no programs for them. He was also concerned about the people who were mentally ill who needed counseling, the poor people who needed dental and medical care, and people who were homeless. He asked whose job it was to improve things for all of Eugene. He believed it was the council’s job. He supported less development and “more soul.” Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, related that he had noticed that the Sustainability Commission meeting did not include time for public input. He supported the inclusion of public input in those meetings. Mr. Vishanoff averred that siting the proposed City Hall at the current location would preclude adaptive reuse of the existing building. He believed that many people wanted a public hearing on this issue. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting supported the integration of sustainability into historic preservation. He added his feeling that the City was “colluding” with the university on the basketball arena. He felt the existing basketball arena was well-loved and there was not public support for a new one. He remarked that “super projects” affect peoples’ lives. He felt that everyone had to “stay away” from the arena project because it would cause “human rights violations” should the university decide to exercise eminent domain. th Gail Newton , 1885 West 24 Avenue, spoke in support of the solid fuel space heating device ordinance. She said it would tighten the standard for small heating devices that put out particulate matter. She related that she had spent the past weekend “suffering” from her neighbor’s wood stove. She noted that she had filed a complaint with the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) and had been informed that the ordinance was on the evening’s agenda. She hoped that the tighter restrictions would bring more public awareness regarding the effect particulate matter had on peoples’ health. th George Brown , 60 West 17 Avenue, reiterated that the voters had rejected the increase in urban renewal spending. He opined that it was time to sunset both of the urban renewal districts after the library was paid off in 2009. He believed that voters wanted to divert the money into street repairs, schools, the general fund, and social services. He thought the money could also be utilized to address the “looming budget deficit.” He declared that voters had indicated with their votes that they wanted the money not to go to “private speculation,” but rather to sustain the infrastructure. He said in the meantime the City needed to “roll up its sleeves” and get to work filling the holes in the downtown area with housing. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. In response to a concern expressed about the lack of public comment allowed at the Sustainability Commission meeting, she clarified that it had been the first meeting and once it started more regular meetings there would be a portion of the agenda dedicated to public comment. She also wished to welcome the Boy Scout troop that was visiting the council meeting. She called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Clark stated, in response to Mr. Ivanoff’s testimony, that there were a couple of foot patrol officers who walked beats in the downtown area every day. He also extended a warm welcome to the visiting Boy Scout troop. Councilor Zelenka reiterated that the City was not involved in the University’s use of eminent domain. He did not condone taking such action. He remarked that the arena project would be the largest project built in Lane County “ever.” He felt it behooved the City and the council to take a close look at it. He said University or Oregon President David Frohnmayer had agreed to a process to address the concerns expressed by neighborhood residents. Councilor Zelenka underscored that the first meeting of the Sustainability Commission had been to outline agreements and rules. Councilor Ortiz also welcomed the Boy Scouts to the meeting. She asked if the process for the first Sustainability Commission had been part of the training effort for new board, commission, committee, and work group members that she had requested. City Manager Angel Jones affirmed that it was. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. She asked to what extent the City was working with the University of Oregon regarding the planned arena. She asked if the State was planning condemnation and whether it would include properties to the north of Franklin Boulevard. Ms. Jones replied that staff would generate a memorandum with the requested information. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for coming. She felt that Mr.Vishanoff had a good point regarding adaptive reuse of the existing City Hall facility. Councilor Zelenka stated that the University of Oregon had the right to eminent domain but had never used it. He added that at this point only one property on the proposed arena site was in dispute and it was south of Franklin Boulevard. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - October 4, 2007, Workshop - October 10, 2007, Work Session - October 22, 2007, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Mayor Piercy noted that Councilor Bettman had submitted minutes’corrections and deemed them, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman stated that the Tentative Agenda indicated that the council would be ratifying the United Front on December 10. Ms. Jones indicated that the item had been moved to the meeting scheduled for January 14. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Fuel Space Heating Devices, and Amending Section 6.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Ms. Jones stated that Lane Regional Air Protection Authority (LRAPA) staff was present to answer any questions. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4961, an ordinance concerning solid fuel space heating devices. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, LRAPA Director Merlyn Hough stated that the area had not experienced a Red Day since the previous ordinance had been adopted in 1991. Councilor Clark asked how many people Mr. Hough thought would be fined on Red Days. Mr. Hough replied that two variables would impact the potential for Red Days: the weather and cooperation on Yellow Days as this would help to avoid Red Days. He said the change in standards would likely cause a small increase in the number of Red Days. He noted that the standards were set at the national level. He explained that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, formed by Congress, advised the EPA on those standards. He said the committee was charged with reviewing the standards every five years in relation to health studies and the most current information. He related that there has come to be more focus on the smaller particulate matter in smoke, as opposed to the previous focus on total particulate matter. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Clark, Mr. Hough explained that on Green Days people would be encouraged to burn cleanly, on Yellow Days people would be asked to burn less, and if pollution levels continued to rise it would become a first stage Red Day. He said there was a potential for between five and ten finable complaints. He noted that a first offense would result in a fine of $50, a second offense if it occurred within a three-year period was a $100 fine, and so on. Councilor Clark asked how many days the particulate matter had exceeded 35 micrograms per cubic meter in 2006. Mr. Hough recalled that there had been a couple of days that had reached that level. Councilor Clark asked if the City of Springfield and Lane County had adopted similar ordinances. Mr. Hough replied that neither entity had yet adopted it, but both would consider it soon. He added that the City of Oakridge had already adopted the new standards. Councilor Clark expressed some concern about the “drastic amount” of change to the standards the ordinance would bring. He felt to do so right before a cold winter would cause people to be fined for trying to keep warm. He acknowledged the desire to curb smoke and particulate matter in the airshed. Councilor Taylor thanked Mr. Hough for his input to the meeting. She supported the ordinance because it would promote the health of the community. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Hough affirmed that the ordinance would make the Eugene law in accordance with the new Federal standards. Councilor Zelenka asked if the fine would ratchet up per occurrence. Mr. Hough reiterated that it would. Mr. Hough expressed appreciation for Councilor Taylor’s service on the LRAPA board. Councilor Ortiz asked how the ordinance would be enforceable. Mr. Hough responded that LRAPA received over 1,000 complaints on average per year. He had been impressed by the responsiveness LRAPA had exhibited to the complaints. He said typically there was a call to the complainant if additional information was needed, and if it was clear who was generating the source of the complaint, they made a call to that person explaining that concern had been registered, and to provide information on burning wood in a way that has the least impact on neighbors. He added that each complaint was different and sometimes it took more than one call to resolve them. He asked Sally Markos, a Public Information and Outreach specialist for LRAPA, to provide more detail. Ms. Markos explained that there was a dedicated complaint line. All complaints were recorded and there was a space on the complaint form to check if the person wanted a callback. She related that if there was more than one call about the same address, she and the other outreach person would visit the home. She said sometimes it worked and other times they would be met with opposition. She recalled that during her tenure in this position they had yet to cite anyone. She said the next step involved sending people to enforce the local burning ordinance who were trained smoke spotters and could read smoke opacity as it came from a chimney. Councilor Solomon asked if the smoke readers were the sole particulate measurement method. Mr. Hough replied that smoke reading was the same testing mechanism used to evaluate emissions from an industrial source. He added that smoke readers were required to pass a specific test to measure the accuracy of their readings. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Solomon and Clark voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting 5. ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Budget Committee Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to reappoint Terrance McDonald to Position 2 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2007, and ending on October 31, 2010. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Kate Davidson to Position 7 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2007, and ending on October 31, 2010. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to substitute Rich Gaston for Kate Davidson for Position 7 on the Budget Committee. Councilor Solomon said Mr. Gaston had been a good Budget Committee member. She underscored that he came to meetings prepared and that he participated well. She did not wish to waste the expertise he had gained by participating in the process. Councilor Clark asked when last a person who reapplied had not been reappointed. Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager, Mary Walston, responded that a person had failed to be reappointed five years ago. Councilor Clark remarked that he found it unfortunate to have someone who was doing a good job for the City be precluded from serving again. He did not understand the basis on which the council would make a decision to not accept his volunteer effort. Councilor Bettman indicated she would support the original motion and not the amendment. She said one reason Mr. Gaston should not be appointed was that the citizen members of the Budget Committee included only two women at this time. Councilor Pryor commented that it was questionable to find someone who was serving, no longer worthy. He averred that he would want to replace someone if that person was not doing the job “properly.” He felt Mr. Gaston had served with distinction and done a great job. He underscored that there was no way a person could say that his performance on the Budget Committee would warrant his not being reappointed. He observed that the council had reappointed many people and could not say this change was based in a desire for “fresh blood.” He asked if this effort to replace Mr. Gaston could be because he did not “somehow fit a profile, match some characteristic … [was] not a political crony.” He felt this change was tantamount to saying to him “you serve until I find I like someone better.” He opined that this vote was political. Councilor Poling concurred with councilors Pryor and Solomon. He stated that Mr. Gaston had a better attendance record than some of the people who currently served on the Budget Committee. He averred that gender was a non-argument when serving on a board or commission. He felt it wrong to appoint someone to a committee without conducting an interview. He stated that Mr. Gaston had done a good job and deserved to be reappointed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman declared that politics was the reason Mr. Gaston was appointed in the first place. She felt the Budget Committee votes had tended to be conservative because the City had a “much more conservative Budget Committee.” She averred that this was an attempt to bring a fresh perspective into the committee. She added her feeling that the gender balance was important as was the balance of having representation of all socio-economic components of the population. Councilor Taylor said the reason the council had the appointment process was to decide whether the council wanted to appoint someone. She remarked that no one was guaranteed a three-year term. Councilor Clark noted that Mr. Gaston had completed his unexpired term on the Budget Committee. He reiterated that the reason the council was having the present discussion had nothing to do with Mr. Gaston’s performance on the job; it was about politics and “who could count to five.” He did not understand on what basis one could define the Budget Committee as “even close to conservative.” He did not believe that statement could be made “in good conscience.” He preferred to seek a greater balance in the makeup of the committee. The vote on the motion was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Solomon, Poling, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka voting in opposition. The Mayor voted against the substitution and it failed. Councilor Zelenka thanked Mr. Gaston for his service on the Budget Committee. He indicated he would support the main motion. The vote to appoint Ms. Davidson to Position 7 on the Budget Committee was a tie, 4:4; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Clark, Pol- ing, Solomon, and Pryor voting in opposition. The Mayor voted to approve the appoint- ment and the motion passed. Planning Commission Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor moved to appoint Heidi Beierle to Position 1 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2007, and ending on October 31, 2011. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 8:0. Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Theresa Brand to Position 7, the unexpired term of Elliot McIntire, on the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee for a three-year term beginning November 27, 2007, and ending on October 31, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Mary Morrison to Posi- tion 9, the unexpired term of Howard Bonnett, on the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Plan- ning Committee for a three-year term beginning November 27, 2007, and ending on October 31, 2010. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Police Commission MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Marilyn Nelson to Posi- tion 7 on the Police Commission, the unexpired term of Charles Zennaché, for a term be- ginning November 27, 2007, and expiring October 31, 2010. Councilor Ortiz explained that the Police Commission was losing Mr. Zennaché because he had been appointed to serve as a Lane County Circuit Court judge. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 26, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—City Hall February 25, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. th Ellen Wojahn , 2136 McMillan Street, represented Central Lutheran Church, which was located at 19 and th Potter near the proposed apartment development at 19 and Alder Street, which was proposed to be seven stories in height. She said the church council had many concerns about the development, which were delineated in a letter she provided to the council. The concerns expressed by the church council were essentially concerns of neighborhood compatibility. She spoke of the value of neighborhood refinement plans and the lack of a plan for the neighborhood in question. In the absence of such a plan, Ms. Wojahn suggested the City carefully consider the impacts of the proposed development and mitigate them as necessary, perhaps to the points of reducing the size and mass of the structure. She said the City relied on infill to maintain compact urban growth, and infill worked best when residents were able to work with the City and developers on the goals that worked best for all. Mia Nelson , 40160 East First Street, Lowell, asked the council to send a representative to the next Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Board of Directors meeting to object to its adoption of population estimates. She provided some background on the item to support her contention that LCOG had prepared forecasts that worked to the advantage of the small cities and that had the potential to affect infrastructure planning in Lane County. She said the City had an agreement that no action would be taken by LCOG unless the City approved it. Doug DuPriest , 777 High Street, Suite 200, representing Ms. Nelson as Shade Tree, a residential land developer located in Lowell, reiterated the concerns expressed by Ms. Nelson. He provided an overview of the methodology used by LCOG and concluded its new work was not consistent or coordinated. He said LCOG lacked the legal authority to prepare such forecasts and Lane County had rescinded its authority to do so. Despite that, LCOG was asking its board to adopt a revised forecast. While LCOG’s forecast carried no legal weight, his client was concerned that it would carry political weight. Mr. DuPriest recommended the council send a representative to the LCOG meeting to indicate its opposition to the forecasts. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting Lauri Segal , 642 Charnelton Street, representing the ‘Goal One Coalition’ reiterated the concerns expressed by Ms. Nelson and Mr. DuPriest about LCOG’s adoption of the population forecasts. th Chris Pender , 6777 West 12 Avenue, reported on the impact railroad horns had on him while he was ill, and suggested that the council take into account other residents who might be sick. Since he had moved away from the railroad, he slept better but continued to be worried about those who lived near the tracks. Mr. Pender endorsed the establishment of a railroad quiet zone. Kathleen Brandt , 1960 Alder Street, spoke of a typical morning at her home, noting the many users of alternative modes who passed by each morning. They came from a variety of walks of life. The same thing happened in the afternoon going the other way. She maintained that she rarely saw a vehicle. Many people used the route. In 1975 the neighborhood group had the goal of making the route safe, and she would not like to see the proposed structure undo that work. She asked that the building be scaled back. Al Kreitz , 2284 Hampton Court, spoke of what he termed the “mega structure” being proposed by the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and maintained that employees he spoke to asserted that updates could be done at the current site for $2 million. He asserted that EWEB Commissioner Ron Farmer, a senior officer for the Bank of America, who could “float the loan” for $85 million, could “make a million dollars in profit.” He asserted it was legal if not ethical. Mr. Kreitz said that he had received no answers to his questions from EWEB. He asked the council to refer the issue to the voters or put off the vote so there could be serious discussions about the issues he raised. stth Malcolm Wilson , 961 East 21 Avenue, expressed concern about the development proposed at 19 and Alder Street. He thanked the council for scheduling a work session on the issue. He considered the proposal an urgent threat to the neighborhood and hoped the council met soon. He requested a moratorium on the project until the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team finished its work. He asked the council to impose a deadline on the manager for the minor code amendments process. He said the neighbors did not oppose students or high density, but were concerned about any project built in the R-4 zoned area and the potential of incompatible density. He expressed concerns about designations imposed on whole blocks that did not provide sufficient parking, and development that did not maintain the character and livability of the neighborhood. He asserted the neighbors wanted to do their part to contain sprawl, but in a way that preserved neighborhood character. Sally Smith , 2015 University Street, expressed concern about the proposed apartment development and said th the R-4 zoning established in the 1940s along 19 Avenue was done more to grandfather in existing student Greek houses than to plan for future growth. She asserted if the zoning was a planning tool, it would have been applied with care and concern for the existing neighborhood. She said the proposed development would house 208 students in 52 apartments, most under 22 years old. She questioned what that would do to the demographics of the neighborhood and questioned the impact it would have on the existing neighbor- hood. Comparison of the proposed development and Bernard Hall (formerly University Inn), where she had once been employed, indicated to her there was supervision at Bernard Hall, but there was no plan for live-in supervision at the proposed development. University housing provided more parking than was proposed for the development in question, and with only 40 parking places, the residents would send 50 or more cars into the neighborhood. She said that non-residents cruise the streets all day now looking for a parking space. th Katy Hulse , 1256 East 20 Avenue, spoke of her work as a resident at Bean Residential Hall, and expressed concern that the proposed development would have no one on-call to deal with problems that arose from students living on their own with few rules other than those imposed by the legal code. Neighbors would have to request police enforcement of conduct issues, and she did not think that was fair. She also did not think it was fair to students as they would be surrounded by people in very different stages MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting of life. She said if the development went up and housed college students, it would be a dorm. She likened it to Chase Village, which was known as the sophomore dorms and was notorious for police activity. She envisioned the development would change the neighborhood for the worse as the environment it would create was not good for families. She did not want to see her neighborhood changed into a transitional zone by her peers. th Gary Craiger , 856 East 19 Avenue, spoke nostalgically of when he had moved into the neighborhood. He had been surprised to learn of the development and said he would prefer to see the sky rather than the structure proposed, which would change his world in ways he could not imagine. He questioned how the building could be considered compatible infill and asked if the structure would be allowed to start an invasion of high rise structures from Alder to Agate streets. He requested council assistance and support. Tim Herman , 1965 Alder Street, spoke of his experience living in a neighborhood close to campus and characterized it as a wonderful place to live. He questioned how the proposed development made sense. He thought transitional planning was lacking. He said residents favored density and residential infill but the proposal did not make sense. He would welcome a shorter building as the proposed building did not seem compatible with the neighborhood. He said it “reeked of greed” and asked the council to place a moratorium on it until the ICS Task Team completed its work. Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, advocated for the inclusion of bicycle paths in the Crest Drive street improvement project. He said without such paths, the system would be incomplete. He addressed testimony offered against such paths, saying there was a need for paths in the area, a Eugene Bicycle Coalition representative participated in the process but did not support the final design, and there was no compromise in regard to the overarching value of narrow streets. He said information disseminated by the City had once mentioned bicycle paths but no longer did, even where there was overwhelming sentiment at the open house for bicycle paths. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and noted the council work session on the development in question was scheduled for March 10. She called for council comments and questions. Councilor Pyror thanked those who attended the meeting and indicated that as the council’s representative to the LCOG board, he had additional information to share. The speakers were correct in that Lane County had taken over population projections. LCOG had official authority and were it to act on Eugene’s population figures, they would have been brought to the council for approval. He said the Eugene population forecast figures included in the LCOG projections were population figures already approved by the council in 2005 and had been increased by a standard demographic population figure. The LCOG figures have no official standing, so LCOG would move them on to the Lane County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to use them if the board chose to do so. Councilor Pyror said some of the Lane County municipalities chose to have their population figures adopted, and every jurisdiction was approving its own population figures, not the figures in total. He advised the council against being drawn into a very contentious disagreement involving communities such as Lowell. Those communities needed to work out their issues on their own. . Councilor Clark thanked those who testified about the proposed development in south Eugene. He spoke to the concerns expressed by Mr. Price, and said that Ron Farmer and other commissioners had asked that the costs be retooled after initial cost projections were produced. He noted Mr. Farmer’s long service to the community and expressed concern about the accusation levied by Mr. Price against Mr. Farmer. He confirmed with City Attorney Jerome Lidz that Mr. Farmer’s profiting in such a manner would be a breach of the law. Councilor Clark invited Mr. Price to produce evidence of his accusation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling thanked those who spoke and for condensing the message by limiting the number of speakers who offered testimony. He looked forward to the work session. Councilor Poling agreed with the remarks of Councilor Clark as they related to Mr. Farmer, and noted his commitment to the community. Councilor Zelenka said the residents of the South University Neighborhood were not “no-growthers” but th instead were concerned about the compatibility of the development being proposed at 19 Avenue and Alder Street. He speculated that because of the R-4 zoning along the road, in the future, there could be a wall of twelve-story buildings directly across from the low-density housing that already existed. He maintained that constituted incompatibility. He thanked the residents of the area for attending the meeting. Councilor Ortiz also thanked all those who testified. She said she was always concerned about personal attacks on someone’s character as it was not the council’s role to sit in judgment but to make policy decisions. Councilor Ortiz agreed that railroad noise was a quality of life issue. Councilor Taylor thanked all those who spoke and said people were so eloquent she could hardly keep herself from applauding. She believed the council got the message about the proposed development and agreed with Ms. Smith’s remarks. She regretted she would be out of town when the work session occurred; however, she believed she understood the situation and hoped the council could do something to “avert what’s happening.” Mayor Piercy spoke to the issue of the population forecast. While she understood that all the cities had their own idea as to how their communities would grow, her concern was that there was no regional plan, and when every body “just comes and brings their numbers,” it did not help answer the question of “what are we going to look like and where is it going to happen.” She asserted that “we’ve got this whole regional planning thing in front of us that we’re supposed to be participating in” and LCOG’s actions “seemed awkwardly juxtaposed” against what’s coming up, as opposed to “how we think” is the best way for the region to grow. She thought a finer examination of the issue was needed. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4931 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Election System Utility Revenue Bonds in Aggregate Principle Amount of not to Exceed Eighty-five Million Five Hundred Thousand ($85,500,000) for the Purpose of Financing Improvements to the Elec- tric Utility System and Providing for Related Matters D. Endorsement of Ridgeline Open Space Vision and Master Plan E. Adoption of Resolution 4929 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Methodol- ogy for Parks System and Amending Resolution 4900 F. Adoption of Resolution 4930 Amending Eugene City Council Operating Agreements and Repealing Resolution 4872 G. Approval of Construction Excise Tax—Bethel School District Councilor Clark pulled item D. Councilor Zelenka pulled item C. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Pyror, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to accept the Consent Calendar with the exception of items C and D. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Zelenka recalled his desire, expressed at the work session on the topic, that Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) would install a solar photovoltaic project on the roof of its new building. He hoped the EWEB board would direct staff or ask a private party to install such a project on its new building. He found it ironic that in the same week as The Register-Guard chose to do an editorial stating that solar power did not work and was not cost-effective, it ran an article about Pepsi’s new solar rooftop system and how effective it was. He hoped EWEB would soon announce it would do the same. Councilor Zelenka said he had asked about EWEB’s plan to guarantee the use of the proceeds of the sale of the land the utility would be leaving to buy down the bonds. The council had not heard a guarantee but that a statement was planned. He hoped the EWEB commissioners would come out with a statement to that effect as it would lower everyone’s power costs. Councilor Clark said he would vote to support the bonds because shortly after the work session he had met with EWEB staff members and discussed the issue with several board members sufficiently to be convinced that it was the board’s intent to buy back the cots of the bonds with the sale of the river front property, which would give the utility the ability to build a green building and perhaps do what Councilor Zelenka wanted. Mayor Piercy said she strongly supported solar-generated power but believed the places that the largest solar arrays were being installed were on private buildings because they received a tax credit the public buildings could not receive at this time. It would be easier to install such facilities on publicly constructed buildings if the tax credits were available to governments. Roll call vote; Item C passed unanimously, 7:0. Speaking to Mayor Piercy’s remarks, Councilor Zelenka maintained that EWEB could work with a third- party to install a solar array with the tax benefit to accrue to a third party entity who could use the tax credits. He recalled that the Legislature passed a bill calling for one percent for solar but EWEB had not yet presented him with its plans in that regard. He hoped it would do so soon so Eugene could live up to its billing as the fifth greenest city in America. Speaking to Item D, Councilor Clark said the Agenda Item Summary listed groups who endorsed it; he asked Planner Carolyn Weiss who declined to endorse it. Ms. Weiss deferred to Jeff Krueger of LCOG, who indicated that the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County had declined to endorse the plan. Councilor Clark recalled that the association had been concerned that the visioning plan in question would become a land use plan over time. He asked how many private acres were involved. Mr. Krueger said that 7,500 acres of habitat block were in public and private ownership, the majority in private; he emphasized the effort was voluntary. For the most part, the properties would remain in private ownership with the potential of taxing incentives to improve them. Councilor Clark indicated he would likely vote for the motion because he favored the vision but the plan included thousands of acres of private land targeted for acquisition by some government body. Eugene had some very controversial discussions about such acquisitions and he did not want to be in the position of creating years of conflict down the road, and wanted to create a vision that worked and did not want to go down the road of condemnation to bring the vision to fruition. He hoped the City worked with residents better than it had to this point. He said that many people’s rights needed to be safeguarded along the way. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon agreed with the remarks of Councilor Clark. She said her chief objection was that the information came to the council on February 7 and now she was being asked to approve it as a consent calendar item. She called for a work session to be scheduled and a public hearing. Councilor Pyror expressed appreciation for the concerns expressed previously but said he was comfortable with the plan given how many people had vetted it. He noted that he had reviewed the document in a different context. He said it was hard to separate the vision from the body that implemented it. That was the body’s problem, not the visionary document. He supported the plan and encouraged the council to be diligent. Councilor Zelenka endorsed the vision. At his request, Mr. Krueger reviewed the vision statement. Councilor Zelenka thought that in the future, people would think the vision was good. He really supported it and was impressed by those who supported it. He also liked the map, and hoped that those who owned private property along the trail would share the vision and “cooperate.” Mayor Piercy said the council was charged by its residents to look out for future generations, and she thought the plan was a perfect example of that. She noted the land acquired through the Forest Legacy was part of the vision. Mayor Piercy did not think the council would do anything irresponsible in carrying out the vision. Councilor Clark thought the vision was good and it was the council’s job to articulate a larger vision. However, he asked the staff to bear in mind the need to be straightforward; if there was land the City wanted to protect it should change the zone as appropriate and list it as land to be protected rather than land to be built on. Roll call vote; Item D passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting no. 3. ACTION: RATIFICATION OF COUNCIL COMMITTEEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to ratify the actions of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as set forth in the minutes of January 3, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Providing for the Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water Dis- trict, River Road Parks and Recreation District, and Santa Clara Water District Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Council Bill 4968, an or- dinance providing for the withdrawal of territories. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mous, 7:0. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Offenses and State Traffic, Amending Sections 4.115, 4.990, and 5.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Declaring an Emergency, and Providing an Immediate Effec- tive Date MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Council Bill 4969, an or- dinance concerning offenses and State traffic laws. Councilor Poling called the council’s attention to a memorandum from Judge Allen of the Municipal Court stating minors would be eligible for the diversion program. He expressed appreciation of that fact, because most people were good people who made bad choices, and he thought the community’s kids should get a chance. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 14, 2008 5:30 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 Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER The Mayor welcomed Jon Ruiz, the new City Manager, and thanked Angel Jones for her service as interim City Manager. Mr. Ruiz said he was pleased to be in Eugene and thanked the council for placing their trust in him. He said he looked forward to working with the council and the community on many challenging issues. Mr. Pryor also extended his thanks to Ms. Jones for her service. He said the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) had adopted a revised budget for the current year and recommended a budget for the next year. He said there had been some increase in human services funding and some decreases in other areas, but the overall budget was in good financial shape. He had attended a meeting to solicit suggestions from the public in safety improvements to Bailey Hill Road and was impressed by the group’s willingness to find workable solutions and Public Works’ support of that effort. He said the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) continued to meet and was developing information to share with the community on the WEC’s activities. Mr. Zelenka said he had been ill and missed several meetings. He would provide an update on Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) activities in a memorandum to the council. Ms. Ortiz welcomed Mr. Ruiz. She reported that the Lane Regional Air Protection Authority (LRAPA) had discussed a potential ban on outdoor burning, such as fire pits. She said those were not allowed inside the City, but were allowed outside City limits. She said LRAPA was also re-evaluating what environmental factors it monitored. She said she was chair of the Human Service Commission, which continued to be concerned with budget issues and how to meet community needs with fewer resources. She commended City employee Norm Babcock and wished him well. Ms. Ortiz announced there would be a Whiteaker cleanup parade, with costumes optional. She was pleased to see the Downtown Neighborhood Association was again active. She had attended a meeting on the design of Elmira Street. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon said the project to reconfigure and rebuild Elmira and Maple streets was underway and designs were being discussed with the neighborhoods. She commended staff for their efforts and respon- siveness to the public. Mr. Clark thanked Ms. Jones for her service and welcomed Mr. Ruiz. He reported that Police Commission members had the opportunity to attend operations academy training and thanked staff that helped commis- sioners gain a better understanding of department operations. He said the commission was also reviewing the Magellan Report and there was considerable interest among staff and commissioners on the subject of taking police cars home. Mr. Clark said a Human Rights Commission work group was developing a resolution related to mental health policy and another group was discussing revisions to the hate crimes ordinance to incorporate State violations in the City’s code. He said the taxi accessibility work group was also developing recommenda- tions for the council. He recognized longtime Human Rights Program employee Karen Hyatt, who was leaving for a position with the University of Oregon, and thanked her for her years of service to the community. He thanked Kurt Corey and Mark Schoening for their work with neighbors on improvements to Bond Lane. Ms. Taylor also welcomed Mr. Ruiz and thanked Ms. Jones. She expressed her regret at the closure of the Willamette Repertory Theater company. She announced a combined meeting of the Southeast and Crest Drive neighborhood associations at which candidates for mayor and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) would be speaking. Ms. Bettman thanked Ms. Jones for her work and welcomed Mr. Ruiz. She referred to a resolution related to the 190 agreements being considered by the Lane County Board of Commissioners and asked for a memorandum from staff explaining how it would impact the City, as well as any information that might be available on how the County would be impacted. Ms. Jones replied that staff was already preparing that information. Mr. Clark said he had attended a Lane County Commissioner’s meeting at which the 190 agreements were discussed. He said it appeared the County was seeking opportunity to incorporate more into the agreements than just planning and development and examine what the County could do to assist citizens who lived outside the City. Mayor Piercy stated that there was agreement at the recent joint elected officials meeting to discuss the 190 agreements. She reported that 700 trees were planted on Arbor Day and said how fortunate it was that Eugene had an urban forest program that reflected the importance of trees to the community. Mr. Pryor explained that Mr. Poling had requested that the council allow him to miss meetings while he was receiving training from the General Services Administration. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that Councilor Poling’s council seat not be declared vacant for the next ten weeks pursuant to Section 23 of the City Charter. Ms. Bettman suggested that the alternates for Mr. Poling’s boards and commissions assignments should be notified and arrangements made for them to receive meeting notices and information. Mayor Piercy noted that under the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) rules she could substitute for a member at that member’s request. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 2 Work Session The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B. WORK SESSION: Potential Hospital Siting Ms. Jones introduced Planning and Development Department Director Susan Muir, to present the item. Ms. Muir used a slide presentation to provide an overview of potential hospital siting in Eugene. She said the council had directed staff to develop a work plan with timelines and cost impacts for the Riverfront Site and to continue conversations on the 4J and The Register-Guard site. She used aerial photographs of the Riverfront site to illustrate the proposed development site. She reviewed McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and University of Oregon Riverfront site issues related to location, size, timing, process complexity, land and financing. She said the University’s requirements were addressed in detail in its April 7, 2008, letter included in the agenda packet. Ms. Muir said initial steps in the project would be to identify 60 acres—the equivalent of 21 square blocks—in the vicinity of the University, identify the financial resources for that acquisition and determine how to align the University and McKenzie-Willamette’s timelines. She said the council options included: 1) support continued negotiations with the University of Oregon and McKenzie-Willamette to see if timeline and financial issues could be resolved, 2) support continued discussions related to the 4J site, and 3) support continued discussions related to The Register-Guard site; those options were presented as potential motions and the City Manager’s recommendations were to support options 2 and 3 as the two North Eugene sites appeared to be the only ones which met the hospital’s siting criteria. Ms. Bettman asked how staff determined what financial resources would be required for the Riverfront site. Ms. Muir replied that the resources were based on what the University required and staff’s estimate of the replacement value of the property. Ms. Bettman asked if McKenzie-Willamette was no longer interested in the Riverfront site. McKenzie- Willamette CEO Maurine Cate indicated that the hospital found the location on the Franklin Boulevard corridor very interesting as a hospital site. Ms. Bettman said the University was negotiating to its best advantage and the City should do the same. She was in favor of continuing negotiations, as long as McKenzie-Willamette was interested in the site. She noted the hospital did not need all of the acreage and saw the site as being very advantageous to the community and still a compelling location. She listed a number of instances of the City’s “generosity” to the University over the years, in addition to cooperation on several ongoing projects and suggested those should be used as leverage in continued negotiations. Ms. Ortiz commented that it would be very challenging to identify an area the size of 21 square blocks within the City’s footprint. She said McKenzie-Willamette did not need all of the Riverfront site and was willing to continue the negotiations. Mr. Zelenka indicated he liked the Riverfront site for a hospital although it would require creative thinking to address the University’s needs, and he was puzzled about why the University required the entire 67 acres. He said the Civic Stadium site could possibly be considered in the negotiations and favored continuing to pursue the Riverfront site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor said the information was useful in understanding the practical aspects of the Riverfront site. He wanted to retain the Riverfront site as an option if McKenzie-Willamette was still interested, but concerned that there were insurmountable obstacles. He wanted to continue to move forward with the three sites, but if one was not practical from a financial perspective, the council should know that soon so it could consider other options as decisions needed to be made within the hospital’s timeline. Mayor Piercy said the question was whether negotiations had been approached by all three entities from the perspective of how the Riverfront site could be made to work for everyone. Ms. Jones replied that was the framework for the initial discussions because that was the first choice for a hospital site, but the reality was that the site was not for sale and the University had plans for the property; its proximity to the campus was extremely important. She thought if there were more time some of these issues could be resolved, but that was not likely to happen within McKenzie-Willamette’s timeline, and staff was trying to identify other possible scenarios; it was disheartening to realize the challenges that would have to be overcome in terms of limited time and resources. Mr. Clark agreed that the timeline was a key issue and echoed Mr. Pryor’s remarks. He asserted that the people of Eugene deserved a hospital, whether at the Riverfront site or a location in North Eugene. He noted that the property taxes from a hospital would help considerably to solve some of the City’s financial challenges. He hoped to accommodate McKenzie-Willamette’s needs. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments regarding the City’s efforts over the years to accommo- date the University. She was not interested in devoting any staff time to the 4J or The Register-Guard site as neither was advantageous to the community. Ms. Bettman commented that all sites would require a Metro Plan amendment, and zone changes, and that would preclude the council’s moving to support the sites without an evaluation of the pros and cons. She said the McKenzie-Willamette and University timelines appeared to be close, and if the expertise did not exist within the City organization to engage in hard negotiating, it should contract for that expertise. She would add that to the first option. She asked how much of the Riverfront site was within the Riverfront urban renewal district. Ms. Muir indicated that 100 percent of the site was within the district. Ms. Bettman said the University was a non-taxable entity and any development by the University of that property would be paid for by diverting taxes from the County, the schools and the City’s General Fund, and subsidized by City taxpayers. She asked about the process for sunsetting an urban renewal district or expanding the spending limit for the purpose of siting a hospital. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that expanding the spending limit would require the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) to initiate the amendment, Planning Commission public hearings and an ordinance adopted by the City Council, which would be subject to referendum. He said the timeline was approximately 100 days and the increase in maximum indebtedness could be tied directly to hospital siting. Ms. Bettman said that was an option for funding acquisition of the property. Taxes paid by the hospital would go back into the urban renewal district. Ms. Ortiz declared a potential conflict of interest as she was employed by Sacred Heart Hospital. Ms. Bettman asked why McKenzie-Willamette was not negotiating with either the 4J School District or The Register-Guard for the North Eugene sites and why the EWEB site was not being considered now that operations were being moved to another location. Ms. Muir said staff was still exploring any site that might fit the hospital’s needs, including the EWEB site. She said the hospital had indicated that certainty was very MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 4 Work Session important and the two north Eugene sites had not risen to the top as it did not appear there was unanimous support for either site. Mr. Zelenka commented that Ms. Bettman’s suggestions had merit and he was intrigued that Ms. Cate indicated McKenzie-Willamette was still interested in the Riverfront site, which meant the council should continue its interest in the site and more creative thinking could result in a hospital in Eugene. Mayor Piercy pointed out that considerable work was done on the EWEB site, but it was eliminated because EWEB had no plans to move; now EWEB was moving and the possibilities for the site had changed dramatically. She thought there were challenges with all of the sites and it would take time to work through those issues. She said if the City really wanted a hospital on the south side of the river it was reasonable to continue to negotiate on the Riverfront site, as well as revisit the work done on the EWEB site. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman moved to support continued discussions related to the 4J and Register Guard sites as potential hospital sites in Eugene. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to substitute a motion to support continued negotiations with the University of Oregon and McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center to see if the timeline and financial needs of the University could be negotiated to better align with the timing needs of the hospital, and the financial resources of the hospital and the City of Eugene ,and to direct the City Manager to consider bringing in outside expertise to negotiate some of the elements of financing, land acquisition and other elements to expedite negotia- tions and position the City to best advantage while addressing the needs of the University and the hospital. Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her motion and the importance of engaging in negotiations with all assets and requirements on the table. She said the Riverfront site was in the best interest of the community’s health care, the hospital’s needs and the City’s tax base. Mr. Pryor was not certain it was an “either/or” situation and his original motion could be passed, followed by Ms. Bettman’s motion. Ms. Bettman suggested a friendly amendment to add options 2 and 3 to her motion. Mr. Pryor said he would add those options as a friendly amendment if he could also include a requirement that a final decision would be made by the end of May, based on the hospital’s timeline. Ms. Bettman asked if the end of May was a hard date. Ms. Cate replied that given the length of time the hospital had been seeking an appropriate site it was time for the hospital to make a decision in the next month or two. Ms. Bettman agreed to accept a friendly amendment to include options 2 and 3 and require a decision to be made by the end of May. Mr. Clark urged the council not to send a message that it preferred the hospital in Springfield rather than a site in North Eugene. He could support the motion as it kept all of the options open. Ms. Solomon expressed concern that the council had no backup plan if the Riverfront site could not be successfully negotiated by the end of May. She feared the hospital would be lost to Springfield. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she would not support the motion with the inclusion of options 2 and 3, which would devote staff time to the two north Eugene sites. Mr. Pryor felt that options 2 and 3 represented a backup plan that could be pursued if there was no decision on the Riverfront site by the end of May. Ms. Jones added that staff would also be exploring other sites within the City and would work on any that appeared to meet the hospital’s needs, in addition to the sites included in the council’s discussion. Ms. Ortiz urged unanimous council support for a site because the hospital needed to be certain of support for its move to Eugene. She would support the motion as it included all of the options and hoped councilors would support the other sites if the Riverfront site was eliminated. Ms. Bettman said her intent was to be inclusionary and her first priority was to have a full service medical facility available to the highest possible population concentration in Lane County, which was the south Eugene area. She said if it came to a choice of life-saving services south of the river or not in Eugene, she would support south of the river. She said it was not as important to have the hospital in Eugene as it was to have it accessible to the largest population concentration. th Mayor Piercy reminded the council that the 12 Avenue and Willamette Street site was also a possibility. Mr. Clark noted there were sites in Springfield north of the river and hoped the council’s action would not result in driving the hospital north of the river, which would be the worst scenario from the City of Eugene’s perspective. The motion to substitute, as amended, passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The substitute main motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Downtown Public Safety Issues Ms. Jones introduced Police Chief Bob Lehner to discuss the issue of downtown public safety. Chief Lehner said the concerns about downtown public safety resulted from policing issues related to disorderly behavior. He said the Eugene Police Department (EPD) was asked to develop short-term and long-term strategies for addressing those problems. He said the special program to deploy foot and bike patrols in downtown was intended to provide overtime based resources for two officers for one 10-hour shift seven days per week from April through October. He said a focused response to a situation involving a particular downtown business owner had addressed the problem while in effect, but it was not sustainable from a staff resources perspective. Regarding mid-range strategies, Chief Lehner said an enhanced hate crimes ordinance would help to mitigate that type of situation. He said another potential strategy might be adding foot and bike patrol capacity between October and April, although financial capacity was lacking. He said longer range the City could consider enhanced enforcement or exclusionary zones. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Captain Pete Kerns said the short-term strategy of foot and bike patrol, particularly on West Broadway, had been effective in reducing behavioral crime activity and chronic race-based activity that did not meet the criteria for an intimidation crime as defined by statute. He said that once the patrol ended the activities immediately resumed. He noted that assignment to the summer bike patrol was voluntary. Ms. Ortiz said she had hoped for some specific language regarding an ordinance related to the downtown park blocks. Captain Kerns said there were currently restrictions that applied to the park blocks that excluded someone for a period of time based on violation of certain park rules, which included the park blocks, but enforcement would require assignment of a full-time officer. Chief Lehner added that specific language was not proposed pending direction from the council on the subject of exclusionary zones. Ms. Ortiz asked if including language on hate-related harassment in an ordinance would be an effective tool for curtailing the offensive behavior seen on the street. Chief Lehner said it would be an effective tool because currently some very offensive behavior was not illegal and officers could not do anything about it; offenders were aware of that. He said such an ordinance had been used successfully in other communities. Mr. Clark hoped the council would provide direction to staff with respect to budgeting for winter patrols and ordinance language in addition to the work on hate crimes that would address offensive behaviors. He gave some examples of behaviors that some business owners had been subjected to, including death threats and vandalism. He did not feel that officers had the appropriate support and tools to deal with the increased level of those offenses. He said those behaviors would need to be addressed if the City wished to encourage more people to live in the downtown area. He hoped officers would be given the ability to exclude specific people for certain behaviors for a period of time, similar to the approach taken in other communities. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Chief Lehner said that some of the behaviors cited by Mr. Clark were illegal, but EPD lacked the capacity for consistent enforcement. He said some of the lower levels of harassing behavior were not illegal. Mayor Piercy asked for information about the type of complaints seen in the downtown area over the last several years and the time of year they occurred. Chief Lehner said that information could be provided, but some of the problems were in categories that were significantly under-reported. Mr. Pryor said there were two problems: the need for a law against certain behaviors and activities and the capacity to enforce the law. He said lack of enforcement often encouraged more bad behavior and the council should be cautious about assuring that any ordinances could be consistently enforced. He agreed that what was occurring in downtown was unacceptable and was interested in enhanced enforcement and exclusionary zones. He said that trespass was an effective strategy for removing inappropriate behavior, but there had to be a concurrent discussion of enforcement capacity. Chief Lehner explained that enhanced enforcement or penalty zones tended to be easier to enforce than exclusionary zones, particularly with respect to property that was open to the public at all times. Ms. Taylor asked what types of offensive behaviors were currently not illegal. Chief Lehner said that presently under Oregon law it was not illegal to shout racial epithets at someone, but in many other jurisdictions there was a distinction between making a general hate-related statement and directing that statement against an individual with the intent to annoy, harass or harm that person. He said it was that distinction an ordinance would address. Ms. Taylor asked how an exclusionary zone would function. Chief Lehner said catching someone in an exclusionary zone engaged in an act specifically prohibited under the exclusionary statute would result in a MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 7 Work Session sentence that excluded that person from the area for a period of time, with the exception of certain things such as medical appointments. Ms. Bettman asked for clarification on what Mr. Clark hoped to accomplish with the work session. She would support another work session to pursue in greater detail what the City could do with respect to exclusionary zones, enhancing enforcement zones or other strategies if that was the intent. She agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need to address enforcement capacity as a part of any discussion of strategies. She would support consideration by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) of incorporating the issue of certain hate crimes in its legislative agenda if they were not already a part of State statute. She asked about problems deploying the Special Program bike and foot patrol to its full capacity. Chief Lehner explained that the intent was to hire and deploy two officers for a downtown parks patrol, but with the department’s existing staffing deficit it would be 18 to 24 months before those officers were available and then there would be no capacity to backfill. He said a Special Projects fund was recommended to allow the department to more efficiently deploy officers for a certain number of hours in that capacity. He said that was an overtime assignment and it was difficult to consistently deploy officers for ten hours a day, seven days a week. He said funding was sufficient to deploy to capacity but in the long-term more employees had to be hired. Ms. Bettman said it appeared that coverage was costing more because it was overtime, which meant there was overall less capacity. Chief Lehner clarified that for the same amount of money, staffing capacity to deploy through overtime meant more hours on the ground less expensively than hiring full-time staff. Mr. Zelenka said he was appalled by the racist behaviors downtown, but concerned about exclusionary zones and civil rights violations. He was interested in a hate-related harassment code for the City and would support the CCIGR reviewing whether it should be part of the City’s legislative agenda. Mr. Klein said the City had home rule authority to adopt criminal statutes but would need to research any specific proposal to assure there was no conflict with State statutes. Ms. Solomon said she would support any strategies that improved the livability of downtown Eugene, which was a critical element to the success of redevelopment efforts. She said that funding for EPD should be increased so police had the capacity to enforce laws. Mayor Piercy commented that more guides and more people working downtown would help to improve conditions in the downtown area. She said lack of capacity throughout the criminal justice system also exacerbated the problem. Chief Lehner noted that nine new officers had been hired and would be deployed in May. Mr. Clark asked if the new officers would have any meaningful impact on what was happening downtown. Chief Lehner said incremental addition of positions over time was the key because that increased the ability to deploy officers for special projects. He said with a deficit of between 50 and 80 officers in patrol alone it would be some time before there was a significant difference. Mr. Clark said studies had indicated the mere presence of officers was a crime deterrent. He hoped the council could agree to request the continuation of the additional downtown staffing levels from October through April and consider that in the budget process. He also wanted to council to consider an exclusion- ary ordinance and longer-term solutions that would involve many entities from a systemic perspective. He hoped that options 2, 3 and 4 in the agenda item summary would be supported. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz appreciated the council’s discussion of downtown problems, but was not comfortable with the concept of an exclusionary zone ordinance until there had been further conversations. She asked for clarification of the difference between enhanced penalty and exclusionary zones. Chief Lehner said that enhanced penalty zones would designate high enforcement zones in which the rules would be posted and an ordinance would be enacted to impose enhanced penalties for violation of specific ordinances within a zone. He said an exclusion zone would establish an enhanced sentence that would exclude someone from an area based on conviction of certain violations. He said that trespass could not be used for public property. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to support options 2, 3 and 4 as presented in the agenda item summary. Ms. Bettman indicated she would not support the motion without another work session to provide direction to staff about ordinance language. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Joint Elected Officials Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council/Lane Board of County Commissioners McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 13, 2008 Noon EUGENE CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Councilors An- drea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, and George Poling were excused. SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Woodrow, Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie, Anne Ballew, Joe Pishioneri, Dave Ral- ston. LANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Faye Stewart, Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson, Bill Fleenor, Bill Dwyer. 1. JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING: Discussion of Inter-Jurisdictional Priorities A. Call to Order – Three Governing Bodies Commissioner Stewart opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He welcomed his colleagues to the Joint Elected Officials meeting. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. She stated that councilors Ortiz, Poling, and Pryor would not be present. His Honor Mayor Sid Leiken opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. B. House Bill 3337 and C. Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) Commissioner Stewart stated that since the last meeting of the Joint Elected Officials he had met with the mayors, city managers, and city staff of the jurisdictions. He asked Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi to provide a brief update regarding the status of House Bill (HB) 3337. Mr. Grimaldi recounted that the three local governances and state agencies were involved. He said staff had discovered the issues to be complex. Staff had found that the issues touch each other in many ways, having significant impacts on the Metro Plan. He related that staff had made good progress in sorting them out and had begun work on putting together a draft work plan, planned to be ready for review in September. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 1 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Eugene Councilor Bettman surmised that there would be no public involvement in the construction of the work plan. Mr. Grimaldi responded that would be up to the elected officials. Councilor Bettman noted that contained in the Planning Issues/Land Use section of the memorandum were the words ‘land use assumptions’ and questioned what those were. Planning Division Director for the City of Eugene Lisa Gardner explained that staff from all three jurisdictions had identified the elements that the three would have to coordinate on at this point. She said staff was trying to map the work plan, calendar it, and put the decision points in place. She anticipated that from the present to September they would work to develop those specific elements to provide a foundation for the discussion. She underscored that at this point the discussion focused at a high level on what the processes and outcomes were. Councilor Bettman averred that tying it to land use assumptions made it a land use process. She observed that staff had been working on this for six months but was saying that there would be no initial scope of work or timeline until September and in this time there had been no public process. Ms. Gardner responded that there had been no proposed decision-making opportunities and no proposed strategies. She stressed that they had been working closely with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff and with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff to determine what it meant to be compliant with the TransPlan. She said until those specific pieces had been identified the assumptions were not yet known and there was not yet a need for public involvement. Councilor Bettman asked about HB 3337. Ms. Gardner replied that Springfield had been working on this for a longer period of time, while Eugene had only been working on this issue since January. She stated that one of the goals of the regional coordinating effort was to understand what parallel paths there were for the two cities and to allow each city to work at its own pace while figuring out what opportunities there were for coordinated problem solving and decision points. Councilor Bettman opined that it was difficult to understand how this would work out given that the City of Springfield was farther along in the process while the City of Eugene was still trying to figure out what the process would be. Eugene Councilor Clark appreciated the work staff had been doing on this. He shared the concern regarding the wait until September. He asked if it would be possible to consider looking at ways that a report and initial assessment of the process could be provided sooner than September. He was concerned that the City of Eugene could be strained in reaching its deadline. Eugene Councilor Zelenka echoed those comments. He wanted to see the Joint Elected Officials reconvene prior to the summer break regarding this item. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz agreed to work on this. D. Public Safety: Short-Term Remedies and Long-Term Solutions Commissioner Stewart stated that he had provided a presentation to the Eugene City Council and the Eugene Budget Committee regarding the Lane County budget process. He asked the County’s Intergovernmental Relations Manager Alex Cuyler to provide an update regarding federal funding. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 2 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Mr. Cuyler reported that the news from Washington, DC, was not great. He related that there was dissension about efforts to bring a supplemental bill forward. He said so far there was no Secure Rural Schools reauthorization as a one-year effort in the House supplemental bill, but there was a Senate effort to move a bill forward as part of the President’s war funding package. He stated that the President had been adamant about establishing a ceiling for that bill and it did not seem likely that he would actually sign a request for supplemental funds if it were presented to him. Mr. Cuyler expected that this effort would start to move very quickly given the time limits. Commissioner Stewart reviewed the funding issue. He stated that the County was working on getting funding reauthorized by the federal government. He stressed that at this point the only chance the County had to get its budget back in order lay in the emergency supplemental bill for the war funding. He asked County Administrator Jeff Spartz to provide an update on the budget process. Mr. Spartz reported that the current budget was funded at $540 million and the proposed budget for the next year would be for $455 million. He stated that this was approximately an $85 million reduction, but $20 million of this was a change in the way the State funded certain services. He said the effective impact to the County budget was approximately $65 million, with the areas most severely affected being public safety and human services. He listed some of the proposed cuts: ? A substantial cut in the number of jail beds funded ? A reduction in staff and attorneys in the District Attorney’s (DA) office, which would reduce the County’s ability to prosecute serious misdemeanors and a number of felonies ? A reduction in youth services, especially in secure beds and treatment programs ? A reduction in the methadone program ? A reduction in funding for the Buckley House ? A reduction of support for the Human Services Commission (HSC) ? Reductions in the Public Health Department, which will be running at the minimum allowed by State law ? A reduction in veterans’ services ? County extension services would be eliminated ? Funding for animal control services would be eliminated Mr. Spartz stated that this would provide a balanced budget for approximately three years but then the County would face another round of cuts if it could not find additional funding for support services within that time. Commissioner Stewart recommended that the Joint Elected Officials hold a conversation on short-term remedies first and then a discussion on long-term funding strategies. Commissioner Sorenson said it was important to look at the General Fund budget reductions going forward and to think about it as a shared responsibility. He observed that the City of Eugene had planned to transfer $1.5 million from its capital budget to its Road Fund to address its backlog of maintenance and preservation issues and Lane County had money in its Road Fund and needed General Fund moneys. He suggested the two jurisdictions discuss a funds “swap.” He also wondered if the City of Springfield would consider engaging in this kind of a trade. He acknowledged that this would not solve the budget problems. Mayor Piercy noted that the City Council meeting from the previous evening had deliberated over its direction to the Budget Committee. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 3 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Mr. Ruiz related that the committee had discussed several high priorities for the City of Eugene. He stated that maintaining the Buckley House funding was a high priority, as was allocating some City budget funding to the DA’s office and jail beds. He said animal control was a public health and safety concern. He noted that the committee had also discussed adding four or five new police officers. He added that the City of Eugene was concerned about equity; it did not want to be placed in the position of paying for services for another jurisdiction. Regarding animal control, he said they wanted to ensure that in addition to taking a look at the current provision of services through the County, they worked with non-profit agencies to figure out the best way to provide animal control services in both the short- and long-term. Mayor Leiken remarked that over the last several years Commissioner Dwyer and he had compared budget notes. He said usually Commissioner Dwyer asked what he could do for the City of Springfield, but he predicted the tables would turn for the coming budget cycle. Mr. Grimaldi said Commissioner Sorenson’s suggestion was worth discussion. He stated that the Springfield budget issues paled in comparison with the County’s budget woes. He related that Springfield was not without its challenges as it had two fire stations that had to relocate and had to find the resources for this. Additionally, there was fire apparatus which needed to be replaced and a jail that was projected to open, all of which would take resources not yet fully identified. He suggested that the entire public safety system be studied to see if some economies of scale could be attained. Commissioner Stewart asked when Springfield’s budget process would be complete. Mr. Grimaldi projected it would be wrapped up that night. Mr. Ruiz stated that the Eugene Budget Committee would end its budget process on May 21 and the budget was on the docket for adoption on June 9. Eugene City Councilor Taylor approved of Commissioner Sorenson’s idea. She did not think the City of Eugene had a budget surplus in any fund, but if the City could help the County’s budget and still have its budget for city roads this could benefit both jurisdictions. Councilor Bettman called the co-deployment agreements between Springfield and Eugene public safety entities “problematic.” She averred that efforts to expand the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) would increase the need for services. She did not believe the three percent cap on the property tax increases would cover this. She did not want to see Eugene taxpayers and ratepayers “subsidizing the massive expansion” of Springfield’s UGB. She was also concerned when hearing people discuss economies of scale. She felt this meant merging public safety of the cities and this would cause Eugene to lose its jurisdictional authority over its police and fire departments. She opined that Eugene’s departments would no longer be able to have policies that reflected the community. Councilor Bettman related that the council had discussed reciprocity extensively in its meeting on the previous night. She asked if the $37 million in the County’s Public Works Reserve Fund included the $9 million from the State. Public Works Director for Lane County Oliver Snowden replied that it did not include the Senate Bill (SB) 994 money from the State. He said the County would not receive the $9.9 million from the bill until November 1, 2008. He related that the Road Fund money was subject to Article 9, Section 3(a) of the Constitution. There was an exception to this that had arisen from SB 808 that allowed Douglas and Lane Counties to use a portion of its timber receipts for sheriff’s patrol on county roads. He explained that a transfer of $1.5 million had been made from the County Road Fund to the Lane County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) in the past year and in the next year’s budget for the traffic team. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 4 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Councilor Bettman declared that the City of Eugene was in the county and its roads were county roads. She asserted that any road repair done on city roads was a benefit to the county. She ascertained from Mr. Snowden that there was no legal constraint on a potential swap between Lane County and the City of Eugene. Mr. Snowden related that one thing the County hoped would be brought before the Legislature in the coming year was a look at the utility’s use of county road right-of-way for free. He said the County would like to see legislation passed that would allow remuneration for the use of this right-of-way. Councilor Bettman remarked that it would be “nice” if the County also adopted Systems Development Charges (SDCs) for transportation. Mr. Snowden replied that the County was looking at SDCs for a reimbursement basis in the rural area. He stated that Lane County was in the process of hiring a consultant to help put this together so that if the County wanted to expand it to include an area inside the city limits, it could do that as well. He noted that such SDCs in the rural areas would not bring in much revenue because there was not much development there. Councilor Bettman averred that there were projects such as the Chad Drive project that were building new capacity and were using money that could be “freed up” for other purposes if there had been SDCs. Commissioner Fleenor stressed that collaborative efforts were welcomed by the County. He hoped the cities could work well with the County in the coming years. He pointed out that Lane County was not just islands of municipalities in the rural areas, everyone was interconnected. He underscored that no one knew if an animal taken off the streets was from Eugene or another jurisdiction. He believed that everyone needed to look at the situation from a countywide perspective and he wanted to encourage as much cooperation as possible. Commissioner Stewart expressed appreciation for the thought that has gone into both the Springfield and Eugene budget processes. He asked if money exchanged in a swap would be stipulated for Eugene services only. Councilor Taylor said an even trade of money should be unstipulated. Mayor Piercy said this had been considered in a preliminary discussion and had not been vetted in the City’s Budget Committee. She stated that the City of Eugene understood it was a city within a county. She felt these challenges were providing the opportunity to improve services. Commissioner Sorenson, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to direct the County Administrator to work with the Cities of Eugene and Springfield on an Intergovernmental Agreement for the possible transfer of Road Funds to the cities in exchange for a like amount of General Funds. Commissioner Dwyer agreed that this was a creative way of looking at funding but he was not certain whether it would be perceived as subterfuge. He underscored that the County contained 1,430 miles of roads and 400 bridges. He stated that it might seem like there was a surplus in the Road Funds but he cautioned against being “too creative” with that money. He stressed that the County was obligated to maintain its roads. He noted that there was no countywide gas tax, the money that had come from the Legislature would sunset after the present year, and the money from timber receipts for the LCSO would sunset in 2013. He declared that everyone lived in the community together and there were no boundaries for “crooks.” He averred that Lane County had become “easy pickings” because criminals knew they could not MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 5 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils be prosecuted for crimes. He was glad to see everyone working together to bring “some semblance of sanity” to the present system, which seemed to favor the criminal. Commissioner Green stated that for over 15 years Lane County had been a good partner in sharing Road Fund dollars with all of the cities, with Eugene receiving the “lion’s share” of it. He noted that the City of Eugene had received those funds with no strings attached, with only the stipulation that the money was to be used on roads. He said while the Joint Elected Officials could draft a resolution for an exchange of funds it would not be able to bind future boards or councils. Commissioner Green suggested that jurisdictions take a look at the true cost of services. He felt the County had been doing the “yeoman’s work” around those services. He acknowledged that the City of Eugene had been a good partner in human services, but pointed out that the majority of youths held in the County-funded juvenile detention facility were residents of the City of Eugene. He wanted to further discuss the systemic problem of paying for the true costs of services. He believed this would be a different conversation. He asked the cities to keep in mind that historically the County had “always been at the table” for Road Funds. He said if it had not been for County Road Funds, the community would look different in terms of the developments that had occurred. Councilor Fleenor supported the concept behind the motion on a temporary interim basis. He observed that the County was at 20 percent compliance in terms of licensing. He believed that if the shelter achieved the national average of 80 percent compliance it would be self-funded. He hoped an effort could be made to market the licensing in order to increase compliance. He agreed with Commissioner Dwyer that the Road Fund money would not carry the county forward for long. Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Grimaldi to comment on the motion. Mr. Grimaldi responded that it was a worthwhile discussion. Springfield City Councilor Ballew said the City of Springfield did not have a lot of money, but the council was supportive of the County and appreciated that it was in “dire straits.” Springfield City Councilor Ralston was willing to have the conversation though he was not sure whether the City had money it could use for such a swap. Commissioner Sorenson felt this was an opportunity to get a conversation going forward with potential to do something tangible. He underscored that any agreements made between jurisdictions would be vetted among their respective elected officials. Springfield City Councilor Pishioneri liked the idea. He suggested that the public safety money could be applied to the inmate road crew. Commissioner Dwyer commented that Councilor Pishioneri’s idea sounded good, but there were complica- tions in that the County’s contract with Public Works was such that Road Funds could not be used without their consent. Commissioner Green reiterated his concern about the true cost of services. He asked the County Adminis- trator to provide that data to the commission before it approved this idea. He said until the true costs had been considered this move could cause more damage than good. The motion passed unanimously, 16:0. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 6 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Councilor Bettman suggested the elected officials look to the programs that would be cut or reinstated with a strategic eye. She said they should look at how to preserve the highest risk programs. Commissioner Dwyer said this seemed sensible. He acknowledged that each community had its preferences in terms of what it deemed important and suggested that, like adopting a highway, the communities adopt a program. He averred that he did not care which one the jurisdictions would adopt, they should just “adopt one.” Commissioner Fleenor observed that the County had performed a zero-based budget process. He stated that it had funded the programs that were State and federally mandated and had run out of money. He said this was why the commissioners were asking the cities to adopt a program. Commissioner Dwyer related that the State would be willing to take on some of the services but it would bill the County for those services provided. He said if the County could not pay its bill, the State would then withhold other sources of funding such as gas tax money. He added that the State also would charge more than it would cost the County to provide the services. Commissioner Faye Stewart provided an opportunity for some of the public safety representatives that were present to speak. Lane County Sheriff Russ Burger underscored the difficult time the community was facing. He stated that 48 jail beds would be available for local offenders in the proposed budget. He did not think people quite grasped what was being considered. He encouraged those present to watch the evening’s budget presenta- tion as they would attempt to “paint a picture” of what the cuts really meant to the community. He said from his perspective the cuts that the County was facing in public safety would translate directly into human suffering. He suggested that any programs to be added back needed to be in public safety first. Eugene Police Chief Bob Lehner related that the proposals that had been discussed by the council were targeted toward what happened if the system fell apart. He underscored that continuing on the present course meant the system would fall apart. He declared that the increase in victimization would be intolerable. He felt the need for a long-term discussion on this was obvious. He said they should not forget that the most critical drop in services would be incurred at the end of May, and he predicted that by the very next day there would be dangerous offenders loose in the community, repeat offenders would cease to be prosecuted, and victimization of area residents would increase to an intolerable level. He stated that this was the City of Eugene’s immediate focus. He felt the conversations with the City’s counterparts in the County had been fruitful. Springfield Police Chief Jerry Smith was not convinced the public understood the numbers. He related that two weeks earlier the Springfield Police had arrested two men for ambushing a third man and shooting him in the head. The victim survived. He stated that a few days later the Springfield Police were notified that the two perpetrators were being considered for release because of capacity issues. He remarked that the jail was at 90 beds at present, and that having 48 beds was to not really provide a jail. He predicted that the budget cuts would have impacts on the citizens of both Eugene and Springfield. Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy said the role of the Fire Department was to avoid unnecessary duplication and to focus on performance. He stated that the public expected the departments to ignore geo- political boundaries. He remarked that when one is in a serious accident one does not notice within which or outside of which boundaries the accident has occurred. He explained that the ambulance service operations MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 7 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils of Eugene and Springfield covered approximately 2,000 square miles of central Lane County and both cities provide urban fire protection. He stressed that the departments had more than 50 years of seamless service delivery with the best interest of the citizens in mind. He believed they had achieved extraordinary things, adding that the area’s approach had been nationally acclaimed. He agreed that care had to be taken so that no jurisdiction subsidized another. He said the departments monitored the data, i.e. the number of fire calls in Eugene and in Springfield. He underscored that as the departments plan their growth it is with these numbers in mind. He averred that they function like an extended group without limiting the jurisdiction of Eugene over its Fire Department or Springfield over its Fire Department. He felt they were delivering services on the economy of scale that people want and expect from local government. Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad said he had worked in the public safety system for 33 years and it was under more stress now than he had ever seen it. He underscored the importance of taking imminent action to correct the situation. He suggested the jurisdictions find some method of agreement in time to rescind layoff notices. He felt there were so many good programs it would be easy to pick out some to support. He believed that collapse was coming soon and something would have to be done for the long range public safety of all citizens. Commissioner Stewart thanked everyone for their ideas. He sensed that there was some hope that they could save some things. He said it would not be possible to save the whole system as it was not possible to replace the entire $20 million that would be cut from the General Fund. Springfield City Councilor Wylie clarified the Buckley House figures in the handout: the 1,310 people receiving services had come from 5,000 admissions. She stated that over 1,300 people had been provided detox services. Commissioner Stewart asked for suggestions on how to address this in the long term. He wanted to form a working group that included elected officials and representatives from each body. He believed that such a group would be best served by including managers and administrators, fire chiefs, police chiefs, the sheriff, the DA, and someone from the court system. Councilor Bettman suspected that this would become a special district, which could be a regional govern- ment entity. She believed this would create a taxing authority with no direct representation and opposed this. Councilor Ralston said they needed to attack the source of the problem by increasing revenue. He believed this could be accomplished by increasing logging and figuring out a different way to spend the dollars that were available. Commissioner Sorenson thought getting people together to talk about public safety was a good idea. He noted that such a group was already legally mandated and in existence, the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC). He recommended that they invite the PSCC to provide an update to the Joint Elected Officials at which time they also could provide feedback to the PSCC. Councilor Taylor averred that more money was needed. She felt that there were already too many committees and commissions. She said they needed to look at whether they were still effective and whether there were some they could do without. She noted that the Eugene City Council held among its long-range goals that they would seek fair, adequate, and equitable financial resources. She did not think they had ever “gotten around” to discussing other resources and funds. She thought the County income tax would have been a good idea, if it had been “progressive.” She opined that it had been “regressive.” MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 8 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Councilor Wylie stated that she represented Springfield on the PSCC. She indicated her willingness to work within that body or to serve on another body. She was interested in how they could improve the economy of scale and location. She felt the police representative and sheriff had been thinking about these issues for a long time. She thought they should allow them to brainstorm as the time had come to be visionary. She averred that they needed to move “some of the turf stuff” out and start thinking about the citizenry. Councilor Clark concurred. He was not sure he would support a special district, but he admired what the fire chiefs had done. He thought it could serve as a model of cooperative agreements that could be made cross-jurisdictionally to find ways to serve one another. He supported looking into the more creative agreements that produced economies of scale. He did not believe, however, that economies of scale would get them there. He differed with Councilor Bettman as he would congratulate the City of Springfield for having the “wisdom to look long-term” and expand the tax base. He proposed they look at cooperative regional approaches to expansion of the tax base. Springfield City Councilor Woodrow supported the idea of the police chiefs, sheriff, and DA working together. He believed this would be beneficial in the long run. Commissioner Green was not certain he would support another work group. He believed the citizens wanted the elected officials to be more united in whatever they did. He declared that they had a working group and it was at the table. He suggested that they may want to invite the police chiefs, fire chiefs, DA, and county assessor to join them. He said he was willing to meet and have a discussion as often as was necessary but at the end of the day the citizens wanted them to come up with solutions that they agreed upon. He stressed that they all served the same constituency and it was incumbent upon the elected officials to provide services in a meaningful way. He said when it came to roads and public safety, the people really did not care whose street it was, they wanted the road fixed or they wanted someone to show up when they had been victimized. Councilor Ballew observed that the fire agencies had been a good model in how jurisdictions could function together. She noted that all of the deputies had to spend time at the Lane County Jail and suggested that police officers from Eugene and Springfield could work shifts there. She thought that would increase the hours people were available to work at the jail and it would provide the benefit of training for new officers on how to deal with criminals. Commissioner Fleenor recalled that there was a saying that one should not “waste a perfectly good crisis.” He said the law enforcement system had to be the right size from “start to finish.” He averred that they needed a countywide solution. He supported establishment of a task force to look at public safety, crime, and justice. He acknowledged that the citizens had voted down 13 bond measures and suggested that they incorporate more citizen involvement. Councilor Pishioneri agreed with Commissioner Green and Councilor Clark. He did not think they needed to form a group other than the one that was present. He found it interesting that they were only just now feeling a sense of urgency. He stressed that it would be up to the elected officials present to take action, adding that he would not want to pass on such a dire situation to future councils and commissions. He emphasized that the County was very close to a state of emergency. Councilor Zelenka agreed with concerns expressed around the formation of a special district. He said the issue the County was facing stemmed from the fact it was receiving less money from the Federal government than before. He felt the choices were whether to provide fewer services or to create more revenue. He thought it was incumbent on this group to come up with ideas that the electorate would vote for. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 9 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Commissioner Dwyer commented that no matter what they did at this point, they were “damned.” He said the wolf was not at the door, it was “under the bed having puppies.” He stated that the County could not manufacture money. He averred that they lived in a skeptical community, but the skepticism arose from the way the government was funded. He remarked that the government said it would not give the County the money and the County said it would not receive the money and then at the last minute the federal timber funds would come through. He felt this supported the public’s view that the money was there all along. He agreed that there were some creative things they could do, but he said until enough people were victimized and did not feel safe in the community and enough people realized that the County could not provide services because they cost money, until those people were willing to pay for those services the services would not be there. He stated that government was a 24-hour per day/7 day per week job and was costly and if people were not willing to pay for it they would “get the kind of government they deserve.” Springfield Councilor Lundberg believed that the jurisdictions were good at working at cooperative agreements. She said this was a long-term discussion and should be worked on by the Joint Elected Officials because they represented the citizenry. She suggested, given the size of the list, that they take on a couple of things at a time. She stated that they needed to get the County, within which everyone resided, through this funding situation. Mayor Leiken commented that Sheriff Burger had made a profound statement and Commissioner Dwyer had echoed it. He agreed that the public did not understand what they were facing. He averred that the numbers were clear. He said the vast majority of the public were good people, but at this point the area was getting a lot of people from other areas. He felt Lane County had become a target for criminals. He noted that with the jail constructed in the Springfield the area would be short by about 500 jail beds. He hoped that the Joint Elected Officials could bring forth ideas to combat the situation. He added that he would like the State legislators to attend the next meeting. He liked the idea of having the PSCC involved in the discussion as it involved citizen members. Mayor Piercy had a strong desire for the whole group to be in the conversation. She supported the idea of inviting the State legislators to the table. She felt they should do what they could and they also needed to work with the legislative delegation. She agreed they were facing a crisis and expressed a willingness to continue to be part of a Joint Elected Officials discussion on this. Commissioner Stewart said Commissioner Sorenson would give the final statement in the meeting. Commissioner Sorenson thanked the City of Eugene for the opportunity they might have to exchange the City’s General Fund dollars for some of the County’s Road Fund dollars. He reiterated his suggestion that the City of Springfield consider doing something similar. He added that he would not support creation of another PSCC. He recommended that the elected officials get a report back from the PSCC and continue to meet as Joint Elected Officials. He thought it had been a worthwhile meeting. E. Adjournment Commissioner Stewart thanked everyone for a productive meeting. He said the short-term proposal could be a step in the right direction. As for the long-term, he suggested that another meeting of the Joint Elected Officials be held in June. He wanted to bring back a proposed long-term direction for public safety for discussion. Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 1:47 p.m. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 10 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— May 13, 2008 Page 11 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils