HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes
Meeting Date: June 23, 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. January 30, 2008, Work Session, February 13, 2008, Work Session,
March 12, 2008, Work Session, March 12, 2008, Executive Session, April 14, 2008, Work Session,
April 14, 2008, City Council Meeting, and April 28, 2008, City Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A.January 30, 2008, Work Session
B.February 13, 2008, Work Session
C.March 12, 2008, Work Session
D.March 12, 2008, Executive Session
E.April 14, 2008, Work Session
F.April 14, 2008, City Council Meeting
G.April 28, 2008, City Council 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\M080623\S0806232A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
January 30, 2008
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling,
Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Priority Agenda Items for Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said that staff had provided a list of priority topics and issues that the
council might wish to consider when creating its list for the joint elected officials (JEO) meeting. She said
there would not be enough time to discuss in depth any of the items, but the meeting would provide an
opportunity to consider how Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County could move forward together on those
items that were shared priorities. She hoped the council would also discuss its expectations for outcomes of
the meeting.
Mayor Piercy noted that Springfield's list included work on TransPlan and a discussion of the urban growth
boundary, both of which were also important to Eugene and the County indicated an interest in discussing
the relationship between the County and the cities in unincorporated areas, which was also of interest to
Eugene. She said homelessness was a regional concern as was public safety, particularly with respect to the
County's inability to provide some services.
Ms. Taylor listed several issues of interest to her and having some regional significance, including urban
renewal, preserving farmland, representation of citizen's outside the City, funding for road maintenance,
homelessness, and perhaps the Rivers to Ridges effort.
Mr. Clark said his four highest priorities were the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 190 agreements and
permitting responsibility in unincorporated areas, Metro Plan update, regional transportation planning, and
long-term public safety planning and shared responsibilities.
Ms. Bettman said there would be twelve priorities if each jurisdiction presented four and asked how that list
would be winnowed down. City Manager pro tem Jones said that would be a subject for discussion during
the JEO meeting; ideally the priorities that rose to the top would be those requiring jurisdictions to work
together to address. She said one outcome of the meeting could be a work plan of next steps for addressing
the entire list of priorities.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Bettman said that some of the issues on Springfield's list had already been addressed so it was outdated.
She suggested adding the voting structure at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to the list. She said
the MPC was supposed to be for conflict resolution but did not have the authority or a democratically
representative voting structure and with the assumption of the metropolitan planning organization's (MPO)
responsibility for regional transportation planning, the negative aspects of the voting structure were
exacerbated.
Ms. Bettman asserted that an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) was needed. She said creation of
a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was intended to be the citizen component required for an ACT. She
said the CAC had been utterly marginalized to developing ways to increase citizen involvement instead of
working with staff on transportation planning activities. She said Eugene had a larger population but any
jurisdiction could veto it. She said another topic should be tax giveaways like urban renewal districts and
enterprise zones.
Ms. Ortiz thanked City Manager pro tem Jones for the list of suggested topics. She said it would be
interesting to include race on the list and determine where other jurisdictions were with respect to their
diversity plans. She agreed that transportation and homelessness should be on the list. She raised the issue
of ambulance service areas (ASA), which were established by the County but served by the City. She said
the City was compensated when people had insurance coverage, but if there was no insurance people were
still transported to a City hospital for care. She hoped that issue could be discussed.
Mr. Pryor said his priorities had to have a practical bearing and a need to be addressed immediately; those
included Metro Plan and UGB decisions, ORS 190 agreements and consequences of abolishing the
Boundary Commission. He said if there was time, transportation could also be addressed because it was
very much a regional issue.
Mr. Poling was pleased to see public safety among the topics and suggested that the ASA issue raised by
Ms. Ortiz could be incorporated in that discussion. He hoped that jurisdictions could work together to
improve public safety. He pointed to the collaboration of Eugene and Springfield fire departments as a good
model. He supported including transportation funding, the Metro Plan, and UGB issues on the list.
Mr. Zelenka listed the Metro Plan, the UGB, transportation, homelessness, and public safety as his
priorities.
Ms. Bettman stated that the County's reference to public safety meant reviving service districts. She said the
council declined to create service districts for public safety in 2005 because Eugene's population would
subsidize services outside of the City and within the County. She said creating a special district would give
County commissioners additional taxing authority by making an "end run" around the vote on the income
tax.
Ms. Bettman stated that the County's reference to preserving farmland in the Jasper Extension/Natron area
really meant adding 1,000 acres to the UGB. She said that would be within the City of Springfield's UGB
and would not affect Eugene. She did not see why it was on the list as it did not make any sense. She said
the ORS 190 agreements were another item "clothed in mystery" because she could not imagine the County
would want to assume responsibility for providing that service. She said it was a political issue and if
people in that area felt they were disenfranchised they needed to talk to the County commissioners.
Mayor Piercy clarified that in the JEO meeting process, each jurisdiction could present its issues from its
own perspective. She said when she discussed public safety or planning issues it was from Eugene's point of
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
view, but other jurisdictions might have a different perspective and the purpose of meeting jointly was to
identify how to work together to address common concerns.
Mr. Poling agreed with Mayor Piercy. He said he understood the purpose of the work session was to
develop Eugene's list of priorities, not criticize the lists of other jurisdictions. He said his interest in public
safety was based on how jurisdictions could work together to improve the system and realize efficiencies,
not create special districts. He said characterizing the issue that way and claiming it was an end run was
unfair and missed the point of the work session.
Mr. Clark thanked Ms. Bettman for her efforts to point out pitfalls in the process, but he did not see
anything "cloak and dagger" about the County listing as a priority how to address the loss of $47 million in
Federal funding. He said much of the County's public safety system directly affected Eugene citizens and
many of the services the City relied upon, such as the jail, might be severely affected by the County's loss of
revenue. He said all of the jurisdictions should discuss how to make the system better for everyone.
Mr. Pryor asked if the law provided for the creation of a special purpose district that was governed by
County commissioners. City Attorney Jerome Lidz replied that there were some such districts but he was
not certain of the type.
Mr. Pryor said rather than categorizing all special service districts as "evil" there should be more in-depth
discussion of the types and functions of districts and whether it was worthwhile considering the concept. He
said no jurisdiction operated in isolation and the County's loss of $47 million would affect many services
regardless of where they were provided; Secure Rural Schools was not just the County's concern.
Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:25 p.m.
Ms. Bettman reiterated that the County was interested in amendments to the Metro Plan to allow the creation
of special districts. She said previously the County had in mind a public safety service district governed by
the County commissioners and there were many downsides from the City taxpayers' point of view. She
asserted that the process was inadequate because it did not allow time to discuss many of the issues on the
list of suggested priorities.
Ms. Bettman said she intended to move to include discussions of the MPC/MPO voting structure, creation
of an ACT, and tax “giveaways” on Eugene's list. She asked if information could be provided on the
amount of money the City of Eugene had not collected in taxes for all the different incentives like urban
renewal districts, enterprise zones and multi-unit property tax exemptions (MUPTE) over the past five or six
years. She wanted that information to include what the City was foregoing from schools for the $167
million that was taken away at the State level, including funds that were not coming through the County
because of the incentives the County was participating in, and the total amount the County was foregoing
due to tax giveaways. City Manager pro tem Jones replied that the information could be compiled but it
would require a motion from the council to direct that it be provided, as it would require extensive staff time
to research and compile.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to provide the infor-
mation she had described to the council before the joint elected officials meeting oc-
curred.
City Manager pro tem Jones said she was not certain the information could be available by February 12.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
Ms. Ortiz agreed the information would be useful, but was concerned about the burden it would place on
staff resources.
Mayor Piercy said the information request seemed to be placing the cart before the horse until there was
agreement that a topic of discussion at the JEO meeting would be subsidies and urban renewal. She said if
there was agreement, then staff from all three jurisdictions should be involved in developing the information.
Mr. Clark said that several members of the council from both sides of the table and the mayor had
articulated several priorities that were also articulated by Springfield and Lane County as subjects for
discussion at the JEO meeting and that would be a productive use of everyone's time. He did not want to
devalue the topics Ms. Bettman had raised, but was concerned about coming to the table and insisting on a
discussion of issues that were not priorities for the other jurisdictions. He said that would not help build
good relationships with those jurisdictions.
Mr. Pryor agreed the information requested by Ms. Bettman was important, but he trusted the City
Manager's sense of the staff's workload and felt that it would be premature to require the information at this
point. He preferred to approach the issue in a more logical and thoughtful manner. He was prepared to
move to support the City Manager's recommendations for a priority list.
Ms. Taylor said that topics discussed at the JEO meeting should be ones that affected all jurisdictions and
that would include urban renewal and protecting farmland.
The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark
voting in opposition and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in
favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4.
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the list of items recommended by
the City Manager as Eugene's priorities for the joint elected officials meeting.
Ms. Ortiz offered a friendly amendment to include on the priorities list a conversation on
race and the memorandum of agreement signed by all jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor and Ms.
Bettman accepted the friendly amendment.
Mr. Zelenka outlined four issues related to transportation planning and TransPlan:
?
The disconnect between the federally required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and TransPlan
because of different requirements and planning cycles
?
The schedule for trying to bring the plans into sync and allocation of staff resources
?
Revamping the public involvement aspect of transportation planning
?
Local project prioritization criteria
Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to include on the priorities list the topic of public
safety and collaboration with other jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amend-
ment; Ms. Bettman declined to accept the amendment.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to include public safety on the priorities list.
Ms. Bettman stated she would vote no on the motion because the City of Eugene was better positioned
financially to take care of its residents and what was on the table from Lane County was specifically a
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 4
Work Session
special district. She said the fact that public safety would overlap with Lane County's desire to discuss
special districts meant that issue would rise to the top of the list as a priority. She reiterated that special
districts added layers of bureaucracy and administration, were divorced from direct representation and
would badly disadvantage Eugene residents.
Mr. Clark disagreed with Ms. Bettman's assertion that Eugene was better positioned to take care of the
City's public safety needs than was the County. He pointed out that Eugene did not have a jail and if the
County had to make the level of budget cuts it was anticipating, it would drastically impact the City of
Eugene's public safety system. He was not interested in creating new ways to tax people but the conversa-
tion with the County had to occur before the budget cycle or there would be very difficult decisions in July.
He asked Mr. Pryor to restate the priority list.
Mr. Pryor said the motion was for a list of priority topics that included 1) transportation plan-
ning/TransPlan, 2) transportation funding, 3) homeless issues, 4) Metro Plan update/UGB, and 5) a
conversation on race.
Mr. Clark said he would like to see the ORS 190 agreements on the list, but realized the City could only
have four topics. He understood the importance of the issues raised by Ms. Bettman, but urged modification
of the rhetoric around MUPTE and other tax incentives. He said those programs were not tax giveaways
and should not be referred to as such.
City Manager pro tem Jones said the Springfield and Lane County lists were provided so that the council
could reach consensus about how to make the meeting productive for everyone by looking at those issues
that were shared across jurisdictions. She said that JEO meetings occurred periodically as jurisdictions
wished to schedule them.
Mr. Zelenka remarked that public safety was what each jurisdiction perceived it to be. He said the issue
was how to deal with funding and coordination of the public safety system and favored having a conversa-
tion about the broader issues.
Ms. Solomon stated that public safety was very important to her constituents and citizens expected the
council to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions to solve system-wide problems. She felt it was
irresponsible to leave items off the list because of a supposition about other jurisdictions' actions or agendas.
She favored having a system-wide discussion of public safety.
The motion to amend passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to add ORS 190 agreements, to include a dis-
cussion of permitting and service delivery in unincorporated areas, to the priorities list.
Ms. Solomon commented that ORS 190 agreements would fall under the umbrella topic of the Metro Plan.
Mr. Lidz agreed that the issue of what happened between city limits and the UGB was part of the Metro
Plan discussion.
Mr. Clark said his intent was to address the creation of a de facto situation in which a resident outside the
City of Eugene but inside the UGB who was not in a position to annex, even voluntarily, because they were
not contiguous, would be unable to build on that property. He wanted to assure there was clear agreement
between the County and the City about who was responsible for providing services inside the UGB.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 5
Work Session
Mr. Pryor suggested that the issue could be addressed through a friendly amendment.
Mr. Clark withdrew his motion and offered a friendly amendment to add ORS 190 agree-
ments, to include a discussion of permitting and service delivery in unincorporated areas, as
a discussion item under the Metro Plan topic. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Bettman accepted the
friendly amendment.
Mr. Pryor also suggested that transportation planning, TransPlan and transportation funding could be
merged into one topic. He said that would result in a priorities list of the following topics:
?
Transportation (planning, funding, TransPlan)
?
Metro Plan/UGB (including ORS 190 agreements, permitting and service delivery)
?
Homeless issues
?
Public safety
?
Race issues
Ms. Bettman said it appeared that Springfield believed the UGB could be split before any other steps. She
asked if that issue would fall under the topic of Metro Plan/UGB. City Manager pro tem Jones said it
would.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to add a discussion of creating an Area
Commission on Transportation to the priorities list.
Ms. Bettman said that this was the only region in the State that did not have an ACT. She said the planning
standards and criteria for an ACT would bring the entire region together to look at funding and planning and
the products that resulted from the process, which included stakeholders from many different venues, had a
certain amount of credibility. She said the creation of the Citizen Advisory Committee was an end run
around creating an ACT and the result was that there was still no citizen or stakeholder involvement.
The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Ze-
lenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in
opposition. The mayor cast a vote in favor of the motion and it passed on a final vote of
5:4.
The main motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi-
tion.
Mayor Piercy suggested that potential outcomes for the JEO meeting could be identifying the top priorities
that the three jurisdictions wanted to consider and the order in which they should be addressed, work plans
for each jurisdiction and the next steps to be taken.
Ms. Bettman said that prioritizing the list should involve breaking it down into specifics before the JEO
meeting. She said an issue for her was that Springfield intended to undertake certain tasks and provide
Eugene with the findings, but she did not think constituents elected the council to delegate that authority to
another jurisdiction. She said the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield were separate entities and
Eugene should take care of its own planning and implementation.
Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to spend no more than five minutes on the dis-
cussion item. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 6
Work Session
City Manager pro tem Jones explained that the chief executive officers from the three jurisdictions would
meet prior to the JEO meeting to discuss process and outcomes based on feedback from their respective
elected officials.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to remove from the table her motion direct-
ing the City Manager to refrain from making any commitment that would jeopardize the
City's ability to fund the acquisition of the Beverly and Green properties.
Mr. Clark urged councilors not to remove the item from the table due to the shortness of time remaining in
the work session unless there was time provided at the end of the meeting to consider the charter amendment
already on the agenda.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to postpone until completion of Item B on the
agenda. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and
Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark
voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final
vote of 5:4.
The vote on the motion to remove from the table was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman,
Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and
Mr. Clark voting in opposition. The mayor cast a vote in favor to the motion and it passed
on a final vote of 5:4.
Ms. Ortiz asked if Ms. Taylor's intent was to prevent the City Manager from making any decisions that
would preclude the ability to purchase the Beverly and Green properties. Ms. Taylor confirmed that was the
intent of her motion.
Ms. Ortiz said it would be difficult for her to support the motion because it was too vague and virtually any
action by the City Manager could be considered to affect the ability to purchase those properties. She would
need more specificity about the funding sources before she could support the motion.
City Manager pro tem Jones remarked that she was not certain what the motion was directing her to do,
particularly in light of the fact that she was in negotiations for properties that had been specifically identified
and approved by the voters as part of the parks bond measure. She said the funding sources that could
potentially be affected by the motion included the General Fund, Facility Reserves, the Telecom Fund and
other resources, and more specific direction was needed.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, called the question. The vote on the motion was a 4:4
tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms.
Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in
opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4.
Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the motion was too broadly stated and could affect too many other
issues, such as the Santa Clara community park and other acquisitions from parks bond proceeds. He felt
bringing the City to a standstill for this one issue was somewhat extreme.
Mr. Pryor agreed that the motion was too vague and general to provide direction to the City Manager.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Zelenka said he trusted the City Manager understood the council's intent with respect to the Beverly and
Green properties and the motion was not necessary, but it was important to provide clear direction.
Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to direct the City Manager to preserve the ability
of the City to fund the Beverly and Green properties.
Ms. Taylor did not feel the additional language was necessary.
City Manager pro tem Jones said the cost of one of the properties was still unknown and directing her not to
spend resources for both of the properties was still vague because she did know what that amount would be
or the source of funds.
Mr. Lidz suggested specifying the amounts would be equal to the appraised value of the two properties to
provide some guidelines.
Mr. Zelenka revised his friendly amendment to direct the City Manager to preserve
the ability of the City to fund acquisition of the Beverly and Green properties up to
an amount equal to the appraised value of the two properties. Ms. Taylor and Ms.
Bettman accepted the friendly amendment.
Ms. Bettman said the Beverly and Green properties were a higher priority for acquisition than two properties
the City was considering that were outside the UGB. She surmised that voters did not anticipate buying
property outside the UGB when they approved the parks bond measure. She asked if it was necessary to
specifically identify park bond measure proceeds, stormwater acquisition funds and system development
charges (SDCs) as funding sources to be preserved. City Manager pro tem Jones replied that those three
sources had insufficient funds to acquire the Beverly and Green properties and the motion would also cover
other funds.
Ms. Ortiz said she would support the motion.
Ms. Solomon thought that discussions of the two properties had been separated, particularly since the
owners of the Green property were willing to negotiate with the City, which eliminated the need for eminent
domain. She felt a discussion of funding sources was inappropriate while negotiations were ongoing and
regretted that the impatience of one councilor to have a motion considered would bump an agenda item that
had received a full poll. She would not support the motion.
Mr. Clark hoped that the council would be willing to add time to the agenda to accommodate the item that
might be supplanted; otherwise it was an affront to those councilors who signed the poll to place it on the
agenda. He asked if the motion would require the City Manager to stop work on any current activities. City
Manager pro tem Jones said it would not.
Mayor Piercy said she supported Ms. Taylor's intention, but believed the City Manager was clear about the
council's direction and would not support the motion.
Ms. Taylor said a memorandum from the City Manager regarding parks bond measure proceeds that caused
her concern prompted the motion and her intent was to prevent anything that would stop the acquisition of
the Beverly and Green properties.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 8
Work Session
Mayor Piercy reiterated that she was determined to continue to work toward acquisition of the properties,
but could not agree with Ms. Taylor's motion.
City Manager pro tem Jones said she had always been clear about the council's direction on the Beverly and
Green properties and that was first and foremost in every action she took; however, she was also trying to
address the community's wishes when the parks bond measure was approved. She said there was a list of
potential funding sources for the properties outside of the three sources Ms. Bettman identified. She
explained that the current negotiations equated to about $1.5 million and remaining funds were still
available.
The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark
voting in opposition and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in
favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4.
B. WORK SESSION: Charter Amendment for Eminent Domain Procedures
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to refer to the voters a charter amendment that
would require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the City Council to adopt
a condemnation ordinance or resolution.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Poling said that the subject of eminent domain had recently surfaced in the
public's consciousness because of downtown redevelopment activities and the South Hills properties. He
said eminent domain was a very heavy-handed tactic for taking people's property and was an added expense
to taxpayers because of the legal issues involved. He wanted a charter amendment instead of an ordinance
to ensure the requirement could not be easily changed by the council in the future and would require another
public vote. He said the City had used eminent domain in the past, but that had been to acquire small pieces
of property for right-of-way or other infrastructure. He felt that requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the
council was appropriate to the gravity of using eminent domain.
Ms. Bettman objected to requesting a charter amendment on a narrow issue as bad public policy. She said
there were already obstacles to condemnation that established a high threshold for any action and it would
require a very high priority for elected officials to overcome those obstacles. She did not think a charter
amendment was necessary and would not support the motion.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. The motion
passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
Ms. Ortiz agreed that eminent domain was a very "heavy hammer" that should require more than a tie vote
of the council broken by the Mayor, but she felt there should be a more thorough discussion by the council
before sending the matter to the voters. She said there were instances where eminent domain might be a
necessary tool, including locating a new hospital in Eugene and redeveloping downtown, but wanted further
discussion about how a charter amendment could affect future decisions.
Mr. Pryor opined that the general public would like to see more safeguards in place against government
being able to take property in what was perceived to be an arbitrary and capricious manner. He said
requiring a larger majority of the council would probably find resonance with most people in the community.
He said if the motion did not pass at this point he still wished to have the discussion in the future because
eminent domain was one of the most drastic actions a government could take and it should not be done with
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 9
Work Session
a simple majority vote. He thought the benefit of a charter amendment was that it allowed the public to
make a final decision on that.
Mr. Clark commented that a recent United States Supreme Court decision created a situation that caused the
public great concern. He believed that creating more safeguards was a good idea. He said the community
was in the middle of a very contentious and unnecessary fight over the issue of eminent domain. He said it
was being used to solve a problem that could have been solved by people working together more effectively.
He thought the community as a whole was very much in favor of the council having more consensus before
taking major actions of that nature.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion.
Ms. Ortiz stated she did not wish to terminate the conversation and asked if the item could be placed on the
February 11, 2008, meeting agenda as Item C. Mr. Lidz pointed out that if the item was intended for the
May ballot, it would need to be referred no later than February 13.
The motion to table failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Zelenka voting in favor.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to postpone the item to the February 11, 2008,
agenda.
Mr. Poling withdrew his motion. Mr. Clark agreed.
The vote on the main motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr.
Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark vot-
ing in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote
of 5:4.
The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Angel Jones
City Manager pro tem
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 10
Work Session
ATTACHMENT B
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room – City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
February 13, 2008
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike
Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. WORK SESSION: Non-Emergency Stretcher Car Transports by Private Providers
City Manager Angel Jones introduced Fire Chief Randy Groves and Deputy Chief Denise Giard who would speak to
the subject of transport by private provider.
Chief Groves stated that the Fire Department was not opposed to subcontracting for non-emergency transports, but
asked the council to consider the entire transport system before making any policy decisions. He gave a PowerPoint
presentation highlighting the following policy questions:
?
Is ambulance transport considered a core service?
?
What level of pre-hospital care should be provided for the community?
?
Who should provide ambulance transport services?
?
How should ambulance transport services be funded?
Chief Groves stated that the fee-supported Ambulance Transport System (ATS) was no longer self-supporting and
the ambulance resource base was inadequate to meet current needs for a variety of reasons, including reduced
Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, unfunded mandates, an increase in demand of the costs of providing service. He
provided an overview of the evolution of the ambulance transport system and how services were currently provided.
He noted that fees for service were designed to pay for patient transport, not the response by paramedics. He said
that County governments had the authority to establish ambulance service areas (ASA) and there were eight ASAs in
Lane County. He displayed a map of ASA #4 (Eugene) and the three zones within the ASA.
Deputy Chief Giard reviewed statistics related to calls for service and transport revenues and expenditures. She said
that a rate increase was necessary to avoid operating in a deficit. She said that Springfield had recently raised its rate
to $1,150 and that figure was used to illustrate the effect of an increase from the current rate of $900, which was
estimated at slightly over $500,000.
Chief Groves stated that trends towards increases in calls for services, rising costs, a growing senior population and
larger numbers of uninsured and under-insured patients meant the system was no longer sustainable relying strictly
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
on fees for service. He said potential short-term solutions included a rate increase, General Fund subsidy, imple-
menting a tiered transport fee system and continuing to lobby for federal funds. He said in addition to those options,
longer term solutions included creating an ambulance service taxing district, redistributing overhead costs, reconfig-
uring ASA boundaries and developing an alternative service delivery model. He said the congressional delegation
had been asked to support a five percent increase in payments.
Ms. Taylor asked if the cost of transport was actually $1,150. Chief Groves replied that the cost would be half of
that if everyone paid.
Ms. Taylor commented that raising rates could increase insurance costs and make coverage less accessible to people.
She asked if the City would place a lien on the property of those who could not pay. Chief Giard said the City would
turn the account over to a collection agency.
Ms. Taylor asked if transports could be done by taxi and if there was a fee if no transport occurred. Chief Groves
said that some types of calls could be handled by taxi and there was no charge if there was no transport on a call.
Ms. Taylor asked if a private ambulance service was feasible. Chief Groves said he felt that the Fire Department
was in the best position to deliver essential emergency services and provide protection for the community, although a
private service might be suitable for inter-facility and non-emergency transports.
Ms. Ortiz said she was opposed to fully privatizing ambulance service. She asked if the Chief would recommend the
council pursue possible ASA reconfiguration with the County or if that conversation should begin with the Fire
Department. Chief Groves suggested that the department begin the conversation and said he had discussed the issue
with other fire chiefs in the County to determine the best approach.
Ms. Ortiz said she supported pursuing reconfiguration of the ASAs.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend discussion of the agenda item by ten
minutes. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Clark emphasized that ambulance transport was a core City service. He said citizens should be assured that
when there was an emergency the most highly qualified personnel would respond. He would not support privatizing
the system, but would be interested in exploring privatizing as an option for non-emergency transport. He was
interested in how calls were triaged and how accurately calls were categorized over time. He asked if inter-facility
transport included a return trip for the patient. Chief Groves said that often a ride back was provided and those were
trips that might be triaged out of the system.
Mr. Clark said he would favor working with the County and other districts to reconfigure ASAs. Chief Groves noted
that the department would still be bound by State law to continue mutual aid agreements with other ASAs.
Mr. Zelenka said he was also opposed to privatization. He asked when the current transport rate of $900 was
established and when Springfield raised its rate. Chief Groves said the current rate had been in place for two years
and Springfield's increase went into effect in November 2007.
Mr. Zelenka favored increasing the rate. He asked for clarification of the taxing district option. Chief Groves said a
taxing district would be part of property taxes to subsidize the service and would be identified as a separate line item
on tax statements. In response to a follow-up question, he said there was no General Fund subsidy of the service.
Ms. Piercy suggested a future work session on the topic.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
B. WORK SESSION: Update on EWEB Roosevelt Operations Center
Ms. Jones introduced Ken Beeson, manager of the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) Roosevelt project, to
present an update in anticipation of requesting financing authorization from the council.
Mr. Beeson presented an overview of the project to relocate EWEB operations and engineering functions to a new
site at Roosevelt Boulevard and Beltline. He said that the relocation was necessary because current facilities at the
downtown site needed replacement and the site was not adequate for long-term operations use. He said the Roosevelt
site was 52 acres and would consist of three buildings—Operations and Engineering, Fleet and Warehouse—and
there would be 250 employees at move-in. He said a variety of sustainability measures were incorporated into the
site and EWEB's design goal was LEED gold. He said the project budget approved by the EWEB Board of
Directors was $83.5 million, which represented a substantial cost reduction over prior estimates. He said it was an
"all in" budget and included construction costs, owners' costs and a variety of contingency and escalation costs.
Mr. Beeson reviewed the impact on water and electric rates of the full project cost of $83.5 million and a $55.5
million cost that assumed proceeds from sale of the downtown site. He said the average increase for water and
electric combined was 1.14 percent, which equated to approximately $52 annually for the typical residential customer
in Eugene. He said the public review process had been lengthy and extensive and feedback from customers and
across the community demonstrated an interest in a project that was economical and incorporated sustainability
measures and application of the downtown site proceeds to the cost of the Roosevelt project. He said there was also
significant interest in what would happen with the vacated downtown property.
Mr. Beeson said the proposed debt issue was $85.5 million, which included financing costs and debt service reserve,
and would be accomplished under provisions of the Uniform Revenue Bond Act (URBA). He said a resolution
requesting authorization from the council to proceed with financing under URBA had received unanimous approval
from the EWEB Board of Directors on February 5, 2008, and would be presented to the council at its February 25
meeting.
Ms. Piercy commended EWEB's work on alternative power, which had resulted in Eugene's designation as the fifth
greenest city in the country. She was pleased with the prospect of releasing the waterfront property for uses that
could benefit the entire community.
Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the council had no oversight or authority with respect to its fiduciary role. She
did not question the need for EWEB's move or reasonableness of the project cost estimates, but she had not had any
ability to determine whether all of the costs should be bonded for or covered by internal reshuffling of priorities. She
said there had been no opportunity to examine whether the assumptions on which estimates were based were
appropriate. She wanted to make approval of the resolution contingent on voter approval. She questioned the
projected growth and other calculations related to project costs. She was also concerned that the council had no
authority over EWEB's rate-setting process or use of the proceeds from the downtown property. She said that some
customers received special rates and others had to make up the difference.
Ms. Taylor asked if there were other sources of funds for the project besides rate increases, such as a reserve fund.
Mr. Beeson said there were reserves, but they were not adequate to fund the project. He said bonding a project of
this size would benefit customers by leveling the costs out over a longer period of time.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
Ms. Taylor asked if some entities received special, lower rates. Mr. Beeson replied that all rates were based on cost
of service; there were different classes of customers, but no one received special rates.
Ms. Taylor asked how much a typical residential customer currently paid per month. Mr. Beeson said he would
provide that information to the council.
Mr. Zelenka agreed that the relocation was necessary. He asked what EWEB's total reserves were. General
Manager Randy Berggren said EWEB had $75 million in reserves and those funds were committed to other uses and
did not include a capital contribution to the Roosevelt project.
Mr. Zelenka asked how the project would comply with recent legislation related to solar energy requirements. Mr.
Beeson said that 1.5 percent, or $900,000, of the project construction costs would be spent on solar energy and the
details would be determined during the design phase.
Mr. Zelenka expressed disappointment with the lack of a solar photovoltaic (PV) aspect to the project. He said even
though the design would allow for retrofitting, he could not support the project unless a PV system was a part of it
from the beginning. He felt that EWEB should serve as a sustainability model and the public would support the
inclusion of solar PV. He asked if the EWEB Board had discussed taking the bond to the voters. Mr. Beeson said
the Board preferred to use the URBA process for financing the project.
Mr. Zelenka asked Ms. Bettman to include a PV system requirement when she made her motion.
Mr. Poling commended EWEB for incorporating sustainability measures in the project while striving to manage
costs. He asked how much sustainability features had added to the cost of the project and how long it would take to
pay off the bond. Mr. Beeson said it was difficult to separate out specific costs, but estimated that sustainability
added several million dollars. He said the bonds would be on a 25-year term.
Mr. Poling asked if proceeds from the downtown property would be used to pay down those bonds and how much of
the project budget represented contingencies. Mr. Beeson said the Board's discussions indicated intent to use
downtown property proceeds for that purpose. He said contingencies were 12 to 13 percent, but only the amount
needed would be bonded.
Ms. Solomon said it appeared that EWEB had done due diligence on the relocation, selected the appropriate site and
made a good business decision that would ultimately benefit the City. She said the council was elected to make this
type of decision and there was no need to refer the issue to the voters.
Ms. Ortiz asked what EWEB's plan would be if the voters defeated the bond measure. Mr. Beeson said EWEB
would need to reconsider what was needed in order for operations to remain at the downtown site if there was no
funding for the Roosevelt relocation project.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the Eugene City Council's approval of
the EWEB bond resolution was contingent upon approval by the voters and the project in-
corporated a solar photovoltaic system; and refer it to the May election.
Ms. Bettman commented that EWEB brought the request to the council knowing that the council had no oversight of
the EWEB organization. She said that EWEB should review the project, anticipate and deduct the proceeds from the
sale of the downtown site, reexamine other priorities, use some reserves and allocate funding from the internal budget
to reduce the amount of the bond request. She said the case should be made to the voters.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2008 Page 4
Work Session
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. The motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Zelenka asked if financing was structured to allow prepayment of the bond from the proceeds of the property
sale. Mr. Beeson said prepayment could be made without penalty and that was the Board's intent.
Mr. Zelenka felt that EWEB's status as a public agency and the size of the bond warranted asking the voters for
approval.
Mr. Clark appreciated EWEB's extensive work on the project and would like to have a specific guarantee about use
of property sale proceeds to pay down the bond. He was concerned about placing the bond on the ballot when the
voters would be confronted by competing priorities, such as street repairs.
Mr. Beeson noted that if the council did not refer the matter to the voters the public still had a 60-day period
following authorization of the bond during which a petition could be submitted to refer the bond to the ballot.
Ms. Piercy pointed out that EWEB's Board, like the council, was an elected body responsible to the public. She said
EWEB had engaged in a lengthy, public planning process and unless the council could determine the request was
unreasonable or represented a bad business decision it should be approved. She urged the council to approve
EWEB's request, which would make available a valuable piece of property that was essential to realizing the vision
for connecting the river to downtown. She felt the public was eager to have the opportunity to increase access to the
river.
The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting in favor.
C. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Executive Session Pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(f)
Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:30 p.m. and called the council into executive session pursuant to ORS
192.660 (2)(f).
Respectfully submitted,
Angel Jones
Interim City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2008 Page 5
Work Session
ATTACHMENT C
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room – City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
March 12, 2008
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. WORK SESSION:
Potential Hospital Sites
City Manager pro tem Angel Jones noted that representatives from the hospital were in attendance. She stated
that the purpose of the work session was to address potential hospital sites in line with the City Council goal of
locating a full service hospital in Eugene. She related that the council had identified this need as one of the top
seven priorities in both 2006 and 2007. She said McKenzie-Willamette Hospital was in a decision-making
process for a new site, after the Delta Ridge site had not come to fruition. She recapped the Delta Ridge
proposal, which had been for construction of a 148-bed hospital that would ultimately be expanded to 198
beds, with a 24-hour full service level 3 trauma center emergency department. She related that the estimated
cost of the facility was $224 million. She stated that the City’s dedicated parties, along with the hospital and
the University of Oregon, had been working with staff to explore potential sites to ensure the hospital would be
located in the best place in order to serve the entire community.
Susan Muir, Executive Director of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), provided a PowerPoint
presentation on Potential Hospital Sites, hard copies of which were provided to all who were present. She
stressed that time was of the essence. She reviewed the three sites that were under consideration, noting that
all three would face a 12- to 13-month timeline for zone changes. She highlighted the Council Options as
recommended by the City Manager:
?
Return with a project work plan and timeline on a preferred site or sites,
?
Continue conversations with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center on a preferred site or sites,
?
Look for other alternative sites,
?
Recommend the hospital move forward on potential sites without support from the City.
She provided two suggested council motions, one to direct the City Manager to return after council break with
a project work plan and timeline that included initiation of any required plan amendments and zone changes to
support the Riverfront Research Park site or to move to direct the City Manager to continue conversations
with the hospital on the other two sites.
Mayor Piercy appreciated the discussion and the opportunity to locate a hospital in Eugene.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Ortiz declared a potential conflict of interest as she worked for Sacred Heart Hospital.
In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Muir confirmed that the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) had included that the hospital would have a level 3 trauma center. Ms. Ortiz indicated her support for
McKenzie-Willamette Hospital’s move to the community, adding that she would prefer the hospital be sited
south of the river. She would not support providing the hospital with incentives for a site that was north of the
river.
City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that once the motion was on the table it would become clear whether Ms.
Ortiz would need to recuse herself, though he was relatively certain she would be able to participate in the
conversation.
Ms. Taylor hoped the hospital would be sited south of the river. She did not approve of providing incentives
to the hospital for the Coburg Road site. She was also strongly opposed to construction of the hospital north
of the railroad tracks.
Ms. Taylor asked if the Sacred Heart Hospital area had been considered. Ms. Muir replied that the sites
before the council were the three sites upon which McKenzie-Willamette would consider building. Ms. Taylor
expressed concern about both hospitals being north of the river.
In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Muir stated that the streamlined timeline for zone
and plan changes could apply to any of the three sites.
Mr. Poling asked if the Stryker Field property was listed as surplus property by School District 4J. Ms. Muir
responded that it was on the list for future development.
Mr. Poling recalled a recent article in the Register Guard which indicated that the paper had plans for the
property McKenzie-Willamette was considering as one of the three potential sites. Ms. Muir replied that those
were discussions happening between private parties.
Mr. Poling also understood that the University was “looking at multiple years” before being willing to give up
its property. Ms. Muir replied that things could happen regardless of the timeline.
Mr. Poling acknowledged that the hospital was the entity that made the final decision. He said it would be nice
to see a hospital located within the city zone, but if the hospital decided not to build south of the river the City
should still do what it could to ensure the hospital built within city limits. He noted that he had lived in the city
for 30 years and always had to cross a river to get to a hospital. He averred that it was important that all three
options remain on the table.
Mr. Clark asked if the PeaceHealth campus site would remain open. Ms. Muir confirmed that it would. Mr.
Clark said a hospital north of the river was needed and he was glad to see it. He remarked that north Eugene
was still waiting on a police facility. He supported having another hospital south of the river but it was
McKenzie-Willamette Hospital’s choice. He wanted to support whatever choice the hospital made. He
underscored that the hospital could bring in $3 to $5 million in property tax revenues to Eugene. He declared
that the City needed to work with what the hospital needed rather than try to direct the process.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
Mr. Pryor appreciated that the hospital was the body that was making the choice. He stressed that the council
was determining what it would do to provide incentives. He averred that the one thing the hospital did not
have was time and it would be looking for certainty.
Ms. Bettman asked what the issues were regarding the certificate of need for the sites. Ms. Muir said she
would get a written response from the hospital for the council.
Ms. Bettman opined that incentives were only appropriate in the riverfront site. She believed it was an
appropriate use of urban renewal funds. She noted that there was already some opposition to siting the
hospital north of the river from area neighborhoods.
Mr. Zelenka was generally supportive of the proposed motion. He felt it would be good to have a hospital in
Eugene, especially if it would locate south of the river. He pointed out that the PeaceHealth campus site was
reducing its level of service. He stated that the Riverfront Research Park faced big issues, which included the
moving of University buildings, controversial building north of the railroad tracks, use of urban renewal funds,
and parking - among others. He had asked the Fairmount Neighborhood Association Board to take up the
issue at its board meeting. He handed out copies of their unanimously approved statement of support.
Mr. Poling acknowledged the incentive zone south of the river, noting that he did not recall anyone saying there
would be incentives for development of a hospital north of the river. He had not heard anything from staff to
indicate that McKenzie-Willamette Hospital had asked for incentives at the other site. He also had not heard
anyone living in north Eugene opposed to siting a hospital there.
Ms. Muir noted that in addition to financial incentives for the one site the truncated timeline for land use
changes was a potential incentive for all three sites.
Mayor Piercy asked if the school district had indicated that its property would be set aside for a new school.
Ms. Jones replied that recent conversations with school district administration indicated that they were still
exploring options for that site. She said the school district was open to building a school in other areas as long
as it was in north Eugene.
Mr. Poling understood that School District 4J did not need the full acreage of that property.
Ms. Bettman advised the councilors and staff to keep in mind that the timeline for land use changes could be
prolonged by community objections. She felt there were other pieces of property in the Riverfront Research
Park area, such as the properties around the courthouse that the City owned and properties owned by the
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), which could be used for medical office buildings and other medical
uses. She preferred to have a hospital south of the tracks and supported providing incentives for it.
Ms. Ortiz stated that there would be a hospital in downtown Eugene as the PeaceHealth campus site planned
to retain a level 3 trauma center. She wanted to support whatever McKenzie-Willamette Hospital identified as
nd
their preferred property. She added that there was a lot of property in the Chambers Street/2 Avenue area
and the west side of the City that the City would do its best to have “shovel ready” for the hospital.
Mr. Zelenka observed that one issue the riverfront property faced was where to locate the University of
Oregon buildings that were there. He remarked that the campus was already very full.
Ms. Taylor said she was not willing to support provision of an accelerated timeline for land use actions for
sites other than the Riverfront Research Park site.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Muir explained that a number of different entities were located
in the research park. Ms. Taylor was interested in knowing how much of the Riverfront Research Park was
occupied by the University.
Ms. Solomon wanted a hospital to be located in the city of Eugene. She supported treating the three sites
equally and being willing to provide support for whatever choice the hospital would make in an effort to keep a
hospital in Eugene.
Mr. Pryor concurred. He said the discussion was focused on what the City was prepared to do in an effort to
gain the hospital. He averred that it may be a goal to have a hospital south of the river but it was a larger goal
to have a hospital located in Eugene. He stressed that putting effort into it supported that goal. He did not
want to create a situation in which the City would say if the hospital picked one site it would work hard to help
it get established there, but if it picked another site the City would not work so hard. He declared that the City
needed to say it wanted the hospital. He would support a motion that indicated an equal effort for all three
sites.
Mr. Poling echoed Mr. Pryor’s concerns. He supported making a motion that would support the hospital
developing at any of the three sites. He did not want to give the impression that the City had a preferred site as
it was the hospital’s decision where to locate.
Ms. Taylor agreed that the City could not choose the site for the hospital, but the City could choose whether to
provide incentives for a site.
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to return as soon as
possible after break with a proposed work plan with timelines and cost impacts for all three of
the potential hospital sites with the hope that McKenzie-Willamette Hospital would indicate
its preferred site as soon as possible.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion so that it directed the City
Manager to return as soon as possible after break with a proposed work plan with timelines
and cost impacts for the Riverfront Research Park site. This work plan would include initia-
tion of any required plan amendments and zone changes and incentives to support this site and
would also direct staff to continue conversations with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center
on the sites owned by School District 4J and the Register Guard.
Ms. Bettman disagreed with the assertion that there was no preferred site. She believed the council preferred
locating the hospital on the riverfront site, which had incentives attached to it. She felt that locating a hospital
in the downtown area was appropriate given the intensity of use it would entail.
Mr. Poling underscored that his motion made no mention of incentives. He said support for his motion would
not entail coming back to the council for another action, thereby speeding up the process. He would not
support the amendment.
Mr. Clark also would not support the amendment. He reiterated that what was most important was that the
hospital locate within the city of Eugene. He was not interested in telling the hospital where it should be
located; he was interested in offering the hospital help in whatever site it chose.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 4
Work Session
Ms. Bettman felt the amendment indicated that the hospital could locate anywhere but if it chose to locate on
the Riverfront Research Park site, the City would make efforts and provide incentives because of that.
The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor
of the amendment and Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposi-
tion. The Mayor voted in favor of the amendment and it passed.
Mr. Poling said he would support the amended motion though he thought it was a bad motion. He hoped that
the City would not drag its feet if the hospital decided not to build on the Riverfront Research Park site.
The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy indicated that Mr. Zelenka had a motion he wished to place on the table.
Mr. Zelenka stated that the motion had to do with infill compatibility and the proposed construction project
called Alder Commons.
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to:
1. Prepare and send a letter from the City Council asking the Alder Commons developer
to work with the South University Neighborhood Association;
thth
2. Use the area between 18 and 20 Avenues and Hilyard and Agate Streets as a test
case as the Infill Compatibility Study worked through infill compatibility issues; and
3. Have the Infill Compatibility Study investigate alternative methods for determining
parking requirements, such as people per acre and bedrooms per acre for new R-4 and
R-3 development.
Mr. Pryor asked what kind of impact the motion would have on the level of staff work. Planning Director for
the Planning Division, Lisa Gardner, responded that staff’s assessment was that it could fold into the Infill
Compatibility Study (ICS) work.
Ms. Bettman asked if the South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) had indicated what elements of
the building project would make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Gardner replied that most had
been brought up at the March 10 council meeting. She cited building height as a prominent concern. She said
the developer was willing to hear what could be accommodated within the math equation he was trying to work
out from a business perspective.
Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to change the wording “as a test case” to “as one
of the test cases.” Mr. Zelenka accepted the friendly amendment.
Mr. Clark asked what the purpose of the letter was. Mr. Zelenka replied that it would show the willingness of
the City Council to ask him to sit down and talk with the neighbors.
Mr. Clark remarked that he heard it said that this proposal was for a building that would be out of proportion
with the rest of the area it would be sited in and that the parking situation would be “horrendous.” He wanted
to know how the City had gotten into this situation in the first place. He said if this was what the code
allowed, the City might have to change its requirements every time an actual impact on the ground was looked
upon unfavorably. Ms. Gardner affirmed that the code that was in place currently was the code that was
applicable. She said any changes which were an outcome of this action would not be likely to have an impact
on the current development.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 5
Work Session
Mr. Zelenka wished there was more the council could do to modify the project so it would be more compatible
with the neighborhood. He had counseled the neighborhood to work with the developer to the greatest extent
possible given that once the proposal was submitted it would be evaluated based on the existing criteria. He
noted that the proposal called for five bedrooms per unit, but the code only called for one parking space per
unit which would not work in an area that had such high density. He thought the issues resolved in this case
would help to define things for other plans.
Ms. Taylor said there were places all over town in which the development standards needed to be changed.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
The meeting adjourned to an Executive Session at 1:12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 2:16 p.m.
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, made a motion to state that the council had reviewed
the materials and reached the conclusion that the Police Auditor did nothing wrong, the Police
Auditor did her job, and that the complaint was found to be “unfounded” meaning the com-
plaint was unsubstantiated and that the council found the Police Auditor did not engage in the
behavior as alleged by the complainant.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute a motion to direct the Human Re-
sources Division to hire an independent investigator to further review the allegations.
Ms. Bettman opposed the substitute motion. She felt the council had received and reviewed a substantial
amount of materials and this review indicated that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
Mr. Zelenka concurred.
Mr. Clark said what was before the council was a “he said /she said” and the materials were insufficient to
make that finding. He declared that the council needed to investigate it further.
The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting in favor.
The main motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 2:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Angel Jones
City Manager pro tem
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 6
Work Session
ATTACHMENT D
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Executive Session
McNutt Room – City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
March 12, 2008
1 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman.
A. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(b) and ORS 192.660(2)(f)
The Eugene City Council met in Executive Session to consider a complaint filed against an employee and to
consider exempt public records. The Executive Session was held pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(b) and ORS
192.660 (2)(f).
The meeting adjourned at 2:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Angel Jones
City Manager pro tem
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2008 Page 1
Executive Session
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
She 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 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 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 reevaluating 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.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
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.
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 responsiveness 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 commission-
ers 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 in the subject to 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 recommendations 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 and 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 memoran-
dum 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 County Commission 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.
Ms. 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 is
not declared vacant pursuant to Section 23 of the City Charter for the next ten weeks.
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.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
Ms. Piercy noted that under the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) rules she could
substitute for a member at that member’s request.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
B. WORK SESSION: Potential Hospital Citing
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 director staff to develop a work plan with timelines and cost impacts for the Riverfront Site and
continue conversations on the 4J and 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 an 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 was to support options 2 and 3 as the two North Eugene sites appeared to
be the only ones that appeared to meet 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, as long as McKenzie Willamette was interested in the site, in continuing negotiations. 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 and it would require creative thinking to
address the University’s needs, although he was puzzled about why the University required the entire 67 acres.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
He said the Civic Stadium site could possible be considered in the negotiations and favored continuing to
pursue the Riverfront site.
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.
Ms. 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 as 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 and its proximity to the campus was
extremely important. She thought if there was more time some of those 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 accommodate
the University. She was not interested in devoting any staff time to the 4J or 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 evaluate 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 nontaxable entity and any development it did on 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 approximate 100 days and the increase in maximum indebtedness could be tied directly to
hospital siting.
Ms. Bettman felt that was an option for funding acquisition of the property and the 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.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 4
Work Session
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
important and the two north 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.
Ms. 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 changed dramatically.
She thought there were challenged with all of the sites and it was a matter of 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 the continued discussions re-
lated to the 4J site and the Register Guard site as potential hospital sites in Eugene.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to substitute a motion to support the
continued negotiations with the University of Oregon and McKenzie Willamette
Medical Center to see if the timeline and financial needs of the University can be ne-
gotiated to better align with the timing needs of the hospital and the financial re-
sources of the hospital and the City of Eugene and to direct the city manager to con-
sider bringing in outside expertise to negotiate some of the elements of financing, land
acquisition and other elements to expedite negotiations 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.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 5
Work Session
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.
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 concentration of population 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 concentration of population.
th
Ms. 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 vot-
ing in opposition.
The substitute main motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Solomon voting in op-
position.
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
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 6
Work Session
between October and April, although financial capacity was lacking. He said longer range the City could
consider enhanced enforcement or exclusionary zones.
Captain Pete Kearns 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 assigned to the summer bike patrol was voluntary.
Ms. Ortiz said she had hoped for some specific language regarding an ordinance related to the Park Blocks.
Captain Kearns 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 months
patrol 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 for a period
of time specific people for specific behaviors, similar to the approach taken in other communities.
In response to a question from Ms. 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.
Ms. 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 underreported.
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 jurisdic-
tions there was a distinction between making a general hate-related statement and directing that statement
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 7
Work Session
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
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 or
enhance 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 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 that number of hours of officers 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 downtown racist behaviors, 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.
Ms. Piercy commented that more guides and more people working in downtown would help to improve
conditions in downtown. 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 exclusionary ordinance and
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 8
Work Session
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.
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 pre-
sented 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,
Angel Jones
Interim 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
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
April 14, 2008
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor,
Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Councilor George Poling was excused.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS
Kudos to City Manager Angel Jones
- Pro Tem
Mayor Piercy thanked Pro Tem City Manager Angel Jones for her service during the months between
former City Manager Dennis Taylor’s departure and the hiring of a new City Manager. Ms. Jones received
a warm round of applause.
Welcome to City Manager Jon Ruiz
-
Mayor Piercy welcomed City Manager Jon Ruiz to his first City Council meeting. She said Mr. Ruiz had
taken his oath earlier in the day and presented him with a framed copy of it. Mr. Ruiz read the oath aloud
for the audience. Mr. Ruiz received a warm round of applause.
Mr. Ruiz read a statement that touted the committed and passionate people who care about their community
in Eugene. He averred that his early encounters with City staff had revealed them to be professionals
dedicated to serving the community. He believed the City must maintain a high degree of integrity and
credibility and stressed his commitment to be trustworthy, accountable, and transparent.
Presentation of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Delta Pond Award
-
Ben Mondie, representing the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), explained
that DOGAMI presented an annual reclamation awards primarily to the mining industry and to agencies
dealing with mining statewide. He stated that DOGAMI was recognizing the work of the City of Eugene on
the Delta Ponds project. He commended the Delta Ponds project and presented the City with the Oregon
Plan Award. He noted that the Oregon Plan had originally been put together as a watershed health program.
The audience applauded the award.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 1
Regular Meeting
Mayor Piercy received the award and thanked the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Oregon Department of State Parks, the City’s Park
and Open Space Division staff, and the Public Works Engineering Division for their coordination and
sharing in this endeavor, which she considered to be a “treasure for generations to come.”
2. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum.
Susan Walsh
, 1960 Emerald Street, offered her congratulations to Mr. Ruiz and commended Ms. Jones for
th
doing a good job. She wished to speak in regard to the City-owned property located at 1320 West 13
Avenue. She was representing a group of non-profit organizations, which included agencies such as the
Committee Partners for Youth, the HIV Alliance, and Lane ShelterCare, among others. She conveyed the
groups’ desire to discuss with the City the potential of allowing a consortium of non-profits to reside there.
She believed this would help the organizations share resources by reducing expenses. She thought it would
enable some of the most vulnerable people access a range of social services under one roof and on the bus
line. She acknowledged that a position paper had been drawn up about the site and requested the opportu-
nity to review it and participate in the process.
Mark Rabinowitz
, PO Box 51222, Eugene, had a copy of a petition to request that the Eugene Water &
Electric Board (EWEB) bond be put to a vote. He felt that EWEB should invest in solar panel factories
instead given the climate change and that the world had allegedly reached peak oil production. He listed
some of the neighborhood associations and asserted that they were not part of the West Eugene Collabora-
tive, a group formed to look at transportation alternatives to the formerly proposed West Eugene Parkway
(WEP). He opined that neighborhood groups were not welcome to participate and therefore the group was
not truly collaborative. He said some west Eugene traffic issues would be solved by adding a traffic light at
th
the intersection of 5 Avenue and Seneca Street.
Deb Frisch
, Eugene, reiterated her contempt for local government and in particular the Eugene Police
Department and the Chief of Police.
th
Dan Weiner
, 751 East 16 Avenue #112, averred that the affordable housing situation in the City of
Eugene had become substantially worse. He related that on February 15, Aztec Campus Housing had
bought 528 units, the majority of which were quads that rented from $320 to $365. He said the units were
planned to be remodeled and the rents were slated to increase to $400 to $449 per month. He believed that
the majority of the quad residents would prefer lower rent over “luxury quads.” He hoped that the City
would poll current residents about this. He thought one option would be to use eminent domain powers to
buy the units. He provided his testimony in writing.
William Ivanoff
, 1810 Harris Street, Apt. 336, averred that since 1972 Eugene had been auto-oriented. He
attributed this to the abandonment of the street railway in the early 1900s and car-friendly policies. He
questioned why bicyclists and pedestrians were not safe in the City. He had read an article about police
taking action in response to a bicycle ride. He believed that organized bicycle rides were always harassed by
the police. In another article he had read that Eugene had sent two officers to check out a program that
sought to obtain grants for pedestrian safety. He alleged that an organizer of the event said the officers from
Eugene had seemed more interested in ticketing pedestrians than drivers. He felt anything the Mayor said
regarding pedestrian or bicycle safety was akin to “putting lipstick on a pig.” He declared that no matter
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 2
Regular Meeting
what was said, if enforcement of the rules for driving was not important, Eugene could not call itself a
progressive place. He opined that the automobile ruled in Eugene.
Gordon Anslow
, 4493 Paddock Drive, spoke in support of approval of the Multiple Unit Property Tax
th
Exemption (MUPTE) for the property located at 450 East 14 Avenue, the eighth item on the City Council
agenda. He said he had lived in Eugene since 1976 and was currently co-chair of the Infill Compatibility
Standards Task Team. He noted that he had previously served on the TransPlan Advisory Committee and
had more recently worked on the Walnut Station mixed use area planning effort, among others. He held
former Governor Tom McCall as a personal hero for his pivotal role for establishing Oregon’s “justly
famous and widely respected” statewide land use laws. He believed that the urban infill projects were an
appropriate step in an effort to preserve farm and forest lands. He averred that in the current “post-peak oil
era” projects that provided decent housing close to school, work, and shopping were needed to limit local
dependence on oil-intensive transportation. He said good urban planning had a role in limiting environ-
mental impact. He commended Mr. Hansen, calling him “exactly the sort of customer we like to see.” He
felt Mr. Hansen valued good design and was sympathetic to efforts to build economically viable projects that
could still be considered compatible with the neighborhood. He stressed his company’s emphasis on
building projects that were in line with the older houses that remained in the neighborhood. He pointed out
that though it would have made economic sense to raze the existing structure to build more units and
establish more parking, they had decided to retain and upgrade the original house and build new units behind
it. He stated that the West University Neighbors (WUN) had conveyed their unanimous support for the
project. He related that they had proposed considerable additional landscaping and a number of new trees.
He said it would provide 15 parking spaces though the requirement was for six and security would be built
into the building. He asserted that the tax relief provided by the MUPTE allowed the project to be more
responsive to neighborhood concerns and to provide a higher level of architectural quality. He urged the
council to support the MUPTE application. He provided his testimony in writing.
Zachary Vishanoff
, somewhere on Patterson Street, provided a handout. He believed that the street
maintenance backlog had arisen from projects that qualified for a MUPTE. He declared that the density the
projects provided had worn out the streets. He opined that a lot of deforestation had been brought about by
MUPTE projects as well. He also opposed allowing the rents to increase for the apartments that Mr.
Weiner had spoken about.
Mr. Vishanoff commended Mayor Piercy, calling her a “great candidate for Mayor.” He was pleased that
she had been willing to start a conversation about the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) property.
He thought whatever happened at the EWEB property would benefit from the public conversation.
Mr. Vishanoff asked the council to Google an article called U of O Seeks Fast Track for Builder of Arena.
He predicted the State Board of Education would “rubber stamp” the application and this would allow them
to go with their “good old boy forums” that were involved with problematic projects, lawsuits, accidents,
and “boondoggles” around the world.
Dean Hansen
, 2917 Powderhorn Street, wanted to speak in favor of the application for a MUPTE that he
th
had submitted for 450 East 14 Avenue. He noted that he had lived in Eugene for more than 35 years and
had worked at a bank and his wife taught at Lane Community College. He underscored how much he cared
for his community, adding that he had served for ten years on the Fair Board, was currently on the United
Way Board, had served on the Kidsports Board for over 20 years, and currently sat on the Lane Community
College Foundation Board of Directors. He shared that he had been “pleased and excited” when the WUN
had unanimously approved the recommendation for his application for a MUPTE. He related that the WUN
had liked the fact that the project had many sustainability features and included ample parking. He
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 3
Regular Meeting
underscored that this project would not go forward as presented without the MUPTE. He explained that
without the exemption, the project as set forth would lose approximately $9,000 per year and with the
MUPTE and the sustainability features he stood to gain 2 percent per year on his investment. He said it was
a family development and he and his family had a long-term goal to build a good project in the campus area.
Gerry Gaydos
, 440 East Broadway, Suite 300, spoke in regard to Agenda Item 5, regarding the recom-
mended design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street. He commended the process that had
brought the design recommendation forward. He underscored that the overall issue was what was best for
the City, which would be decided by the council. He asked the council to consider the issues regarding
bicycling and safety as well as the need to maintain the rural character, which meant that some people still
had larger vehicles such as tractors and recreational vehicles. He pointed out that if access were taken away
from someone it constituted a taking. He agreed there should be a compromise between City standards,
design, and safety. He thought this might be best served by having the narrow roads that had been
approved. He felt that if the City went further and required diverters and traffic calming elements it would
cause area residents concern. There were many difficult intersections in the area. He underscored the need
to accomodate emergency vehicles.
Lyndell Wilken
, 3065 Whitbeck Boulevard, stated that she had served as the bicycle/pedestrian representa-
tive for the Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT). She said everyone in the process regardless of their
position felt passionately about the design for which they advocated. She felt no one could be faulted. She
expressed disappointment in the design as presented because she did not believe it provided safe passage for
bicycles. She related that many in the bicycling community wanted the full five-foot wide lane. She
disagreed with the design and could not vouch for its safety.
th
Marilyn Milne
, 2156 Harris Street, spoke regarding the proposed building project on the corner of 19
Avenue and Alder Street. She thanked Councilor Zelenka on behalf of the neighborhood for “caring about
the livability” of the neighborhood. She related that the neighborhood residents had met with the developer
of the apartment building. She felt he was concerned and said he was now looking at ways to lessen the
impact of the building on the neighborhood. She noted that the neighborhood had representatives on the
Infill Compatibility Siting Task Force (ICS) and several members were serving on ICS subcommittees.
Ms. Milne stated that many South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) residents attended the
Planning Commission’s recent Minor Code Amendment Process (MiCAP) meeting. She related that they
had been disappointed in the planners’ recommendation for “an extremely limited” transition zone between
th
land zoned R-3 and R-1 on the south side of 19 Avenue. She said one resident had offered suggestions for
how to improve the proposal. She averred that current code in the ICS directives did not define density so
that it recognized all forms. She cited, as an example, conversion of a residence into a home for five to eight
non-related people. She said another MiCAP proposal concerned parking. She felt it would help to have
ICS explore parking requirements for R-3 and R-4 developments. She added that they wanted the area
thth
between 18 and 20 Avenues and Agate and Hilyard Streets to be an ICS test case. She asked the council
to “remind City staff to follow through on these directives.”
th
Victor Stathakis
, 935 West 8 Avenue, chair of the Wayne Morse Youth Program, stated that the free
th
speech terrace was operating again for its 16 year with the advent of the first Saturday Market of the year.
He invited the councilors to see Mr. Morse’s legacy in action, which he wanted to pass on to young in
particular. He called it a tough venue. He said they were proud of the Saturday Market and the Farmers
Market; they had “three great corners.” He related that the fourth corner, however, featured a “disparate
bunch of groups.” He invited the City to tap into its expertise on how to better coordinate this area. He
noted that they were working well with the County Commissioners but they needed help from the Eugene
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 4
Regular Meeting
Police Department (EPD). He remarked that it was not numbers so much as the quality of policing. He
averred that they needed “Officer Friendly” who knew the people there and could discern between those who
were bad and those who were good. He asked to sit down with representatives of the EPD to talk about the
possibility of making the area someone’s beat. He wanted to improve the fourth corner.
Charles Biggs
, 540 Antelope Way, said he was a long-time bicycle advocate and had also been involved in
neighborhood associations. He expressed pride in the CDCT, noting that the plan had been a long time in
coming and that the Crest Drive area residents had worked hard with the City and with neighbors. It
concerned him that the bicycle community was coming in “at this late hour” and advocating for something
that was not in the plan.
Sherie Hawley
, 3484 Storey Boulevard, supported the CDCT design. She asked the council to approve the
design and the four-foot sidewalks. She noted that the Crest Drive neighbors had been working on the
challenge of redesigning winding, steep streets in that area. She stated that the results of the community-
based process were a redesign that worked for everyone. She stressed that all involved had made compro-
mises; compromise had been “key.” She pointed out that everyone on Storey Boulevard and middle Crest
Drive were losing all of their on-street parking. She said the neighbors were not incited to become involved
because the street was unsafe, but because the City had wanted to redo the street which was full of potholes.
She could not recall any bicyclist or pedestrian injuries in all of the years she had resided there. She said
they had a committee called the Crest Drive Advisory Committee and they were still fine-tuning designs.
Len Bailey
, 2932 Friendly Street, supported the CDCT design recommendation. He pointed out that any
changes to the proposed streets for the Crest neighborhood could have serious repercussions and unintended
consequences. He said at present the streets were 18 feet wide with no sidewalks, no bicycle lanes, no on-
street parking, and no bioswales and there had been no accidents. He pointed out that an addition of a
bicycle lane would eliminate bioswales, which he considered a key element to sustainability. He understood
th
that easy bicycle access existed to Lorane Highway from 29 Avenue and from Madison and Chamber
Streets. He thought it would be absurd to create bicycle lanes on Storey Boulevard, Friendly Street, and
Crest Drive if Lorane Highway was the main destination for bicyclists. He noted that Lorane Highway had
no bicycle lanes, and little or no shoulder, and “nobody seemed to mind.” He averred that the sidewalks had
been carefully thought out to address the needs of the neighborhood.
Kathy Saranpa
, 3015 Friendly Street, said she had served as a member of the CDCT and was also a
member of the Crest Drive Citizens Association (CDCA). She averred that the design process had not been
perfect, but she did not believe any democracy anywhere could be characterized as perfect. She felt the
council had the opportunity to prove that democracy worked. She wished to underscore that the CDCT was
not anti-bicycle, anti-child, anti-safety, or anti-sustainability. Nonetheless, they disputed the usefulness of a
five-foot wide strip of pavement that would benefit a handful of “elite, recreational bicyclists.” She alleged
that the bicycle representative had not opposed the design without bicycle lanes during the process. She said
there were alternate bikeways plotted in City documents and one of the team members was researching them.
She felt it would be a more productive use of a concerned bicyclist’s energy to work with that team member
on identifying them and getting them built rather than “agitating” against the CDCT at this point in time.
She stressed that the neighborhood association supported the proposed design.
Barbara Donovan
, 885 Crest Drive, said letters against the Crest area street design contained misinforma-
tion. She suspected that signers of the petition were not given the whole story. She related that it was only
during the last meeting that a negative vote had been cast by the bicycle representative. She read a portion
of the Eugene City Street Classification document which indicated that bicycle lanes on local streets were
almost never used. She reiterated that the whole design process had begun because area residents had not
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 5
Regular Meeting
wanted the roads to be classified as collectors. She related that area neighbors still opposed the change in
classification. She felt that the “windy, steep streets at the top of a watershed” were the perfect place for
Eugene to “join in on a movement toward the shared livable green streets” that had been studied. She
averred that permeable construction materials in green streets allowed water to be filtered before it went into
the watershed. She said the 18-foot streets and 4-foot sidewalks would keep most walkways off the road,
thus eliminating curbs and gutters and allowing the use of bioswales. She felt that adding a bicycle lane
would curtail the ability to build the road in this way. She added that small electric cars and buses would
offer another sustainable transportation solution.
Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. She thanked
everyone on the CDCT for their efforts. She also supported the use of the former Naval/Marine Reserve
site.
Additionally, Mayor Piercy clarified that the West Eugene Collaborative did have neighborhood representa-
tion. She said there would be an outreach effort to involve more people from the neighborhoods.
Mayor Piercy hoped that Mr. Ivanoff would work with the City to help implement the new bike and
pedestrian plan.
Councilor Clark thanked everyone who spoke, and in particular the people from the CDCT. He noted that
th
he had requested staff to look into the building at the corner of Chambers Street and 13 Avenue. He
wanted to know how to accomplish what John Brown had suggested at an earlier council meeting i.e. to
make the building a home for a consortium of non-profit agencies.
Councilor Taylor thanked everyone. She thanked Mr. Stathakis for coming and for his work with youth.
She hoped his request for an “Officer Friendly” could be granted. She also wanted to thank the CDCT.
Councilor Bettman appreciated that the University neighborhood was getting involved in the infill and design
standards discussion. She asked if it would be necessary to request a work session on the former
Navy/Marine Reserve building.
Ms. Jones explained that staff was in the process of preparing a memorandum on the options.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
- February 11, 2008, City Council Meeting
- February 12, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting
- February 19, 2008, Work Session
- February 20, 2008, Work Session
- February 25, 2008, Work Session
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Adoption of Resolution 4935 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Water Utility System
Revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount of Not to Exceed Fifteen Million
Five Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($15,595,000) for the Purpose of Financing
Certain Capital improvements to the Water Utility System and Providing for Certain
Details and Related Matters
D. Adoption of Resolution 4936 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Electric Utility System
Revenue Refunding Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount of Not to Exceed Forty-Six
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 6
Regular Meeting
Million Dollars ($46,000,000) For the Purposes of Refinancing Improvements to the Elec-
tric Utility System and Providing for Related Matters
E. Adoption of Resolution 4937 Authorizing Interim and Long Term Financing for Local Im-
provement Projects and Terminating the Authority under Resolution No. 4807
F. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 5, 2008, and
February 13, 2008
G. Approval of Eugene 08 Neighborhood Grants
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Con-
sent Calendar.
Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted corrections to the minutes. She pulled Items C, D, E, and F.
Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections to the minutes, without objection, approved.
Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items C, D, E, and F, passed
unanimously, 7:0.
Councilor Bettman stated that $36 million had been approved in 1999, and $21.4 million had been spent to
date, and in 2002, $11 million had been approved and $10 million had been spent to date. She asked if
reissuing the bond, as per Consent Calendar Item C, would re-extend the deadline. Sue Cutsogeorge,
Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, responded that the deadline was from the
time of issuance of the bonds.
Councilor Bettman ascertained from Ms. Cutsogeorge that there was no 30-year timeframe on the bonds.
She said the thing that was missing for her was a project list of what the money would be spent on. She
could not support the bond.
Cathy Bloom, Finance Manager for EWEB, explained that the money would be used for capital improve-
ments to the aging infrastructure, the Hayden Bridge filtration plant expansion and enhancements, and the
replacement of water mains.
Councilor Bettman reiterated her desire for a list of projects.
Councilor Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Bloom that the electric system bonds were existing bonds that were
already embedded in the rates. He asked if the purpose of this action was to help lower costs and stabilize
rates. Ms. Bloom confirmed this was the purpose.
Councilor Zelenka asked if the projects the water bonds were intended to pay for were in EWEB’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Bloom affirmed that they were. She said every year as part of the
budgeting process they developed what the capital costs were currently, and would be for the next year, and
for the next four years. She stressed that this was part of the public process when they adopted the budget.
Councilor Zelenka pointed out that EWEB Commissioners were elected and if someone did not like how
things were going the ultimate accountability was being “un-elected.”
Roll call vote; the motion passed 5:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 7
Regular Meeting
Regarding Item D, Councilor Bettman ascertained from Ms. Bloom that the refinance of the bond would
save $1.7 million and this would result in future savings to the ratepayers. In response to a follow-up
question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Bloom explained that the savings would occur from the present
forward.
Councilor Bettman asked if the bond money would be used to accomplish anything else. Ms. Bloom replied
that it would not; they were refinancing an existing debt to realize a savings.
Councilor Bettman said it seemed to her that there would not be much savings given the administrative
costs. She wondered what other reason there would be for refinancing the bonds. Ms. Bloom explained that
the savings were far and above the costs of issuing the bonds.
Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Councilor Bettman said she had flagged Item E because there was a request to increase the amount of debt
that could be incurred on assessments from $4 million to $5 million.
In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that if enough
property owners refuse a Local Improvement District (LID) the City Council could override it.
Councilor Bettman would not favor forcing people to take on a large liability. She wanted to know that the
Crest Drive neighbors were in agreement before she could do so.
Mr. Klein referred to Section 37 of the Charter and determined that if the owners of a majority of the parcels
that would be assessed object then the improvement could not go forward unless two-thirds of the council
decided to override that objection.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to table Item E, adoption of
Resolution 4937 authorizing interim and long-term financing for Local Improvement Pro-
jects and terminating the authority under Resolution No. 4807. Roll call vote; the motion
passed, 5:2; councilors Clark and Pryor voting in opposition.
Regarding Item F, Councilor Bettman wanted the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations
(CCIGR) minutes to include a small description of the bills discussed. She also wanted the minutes to be
explicit regarding times when the Mayor would step in and vote in place of a CCIGR member that was not
present. She noted that the minutes had indicated that the Intergovernmental Relations Manager referred to
the legislative document when there was not time to consult with the CCIGR on a bill. She recalled that a
decision had been made to remain neutral on a bill in that case. She wanted clarification of that as she
considered the Legislative Policy Document to be “vague.” She added that there had not been a quick
enough turnaround for the minutes to come before the City Council.
Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 8
Regular Meeting
4. ACTION:
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan; Amending the River Road-Santa
Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram and Text; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map, and
Adopting a Severability Clause (Oregon West Management, LLC, MA 07-2, RA 07-1, and Z 07-3)
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City adopt Council Bill
4965, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Land Use Diagram, River
Road – Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram, and Eugene Zoning Map.
Councilor Clark indicated that he had some ex parte contacts with “both sides” of this discussion by having
attended the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) meetings at which it had been presented and
discussed.
Councilor Ortiz said she would support the item. She averred that this part of the community sometimes felt
that they were not listened to. She commented that the council could not say what kind of development
could be put into that area, it could only determine what kind of zone changes there could be. She thought
the council should give the person who bought the property support based on the fact that he bought the
property with division in mind. She noted that he had a lot of support in the community.
Councilor Bettman indicated she would oppose the bill. She declared that the application was inconsistent
with the MetroPlan, the Refinement Plan, the Urban Facilities Plan, the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan, the commercial land study, and TransPlan. She felt she could support it if the C-2 could be
converted to C-1 and include a caveat in the resolution adopting it that would require 136 units of housing to
be built over the area. She averred that the “symbolism” and language of nodal development and mixed use
were being employed but it was not accomplishing those goals. She called it a “cash industry” and a
“lottery” because if a person could afford a lawyer they could work to get laws waived and zoning changed.
She felt the action was inconsistent with policies.
Councilor Taylor had been convinced by the arguments in opposition. She felt that the fact that someone
bought the property thinking they would profit from it obligated the council to approve it.
Councilor Bettman said the council was acting on the zoning change and the land use designation change,
along with the Planning Commission addition requiring some traffic enhancements. She asserted that none
of the verbiage in the resolution would require the applicant to deliver anything more than what was required
in the zones. She felt that the lack of minimum density in the C-2 area could mean there would be no
housing there as there were no guarantees.
In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Heather O’Donnell, Associate Planner for the Planning
and Development Department, affirmed that the owner could potentially sell the property after successfully
applying for the changes. She said the applicant was also proposing text amendments on the Refinement
Plan that had some limitations on the types of uses that could be allowed as well as the size of the buildings,
pedestrian connections and other items. She explained that those would be triggered through the TUD and
the Site Review Overlay if someone else initiated a development on the property.
Councilor Clark reminded the City Council that many letters of support had been received from area
residents. He thought Councilor Bettman’s comments could lead to a different conclusion. He underscored
that the president of the SCCO had written a letter of support, noting that he also served on the Infill
Compatibility Standards Task Force and was knowledgeable about this. He appreciated his letter of
recommendation.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 9
Regular Meeting
Councilor Bettman said when she had served on the Land Use Measures Task Force one of the issues they
had looked at was “strip commercial.” She averred that it created “huge problems, expensive problems, and
dangerous problems.” She declared that it was the “definition of unsustainable development” to build strip
commercial development. She believed that it was occurring piecemeal and the overall cumulative effect
was not being considered.
Roll call vote; the motion passed 5:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition.
5. ACTION:
Crest Drive Community Team Recommended Design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and
Friendly Street
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the design for Crest
Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street as recommended by the Crest Drive Commu-
nity Team.
Councilor Clark commented that it had been an interesting process listening to all of the testimony and
reading email input. He thanked the neighborhood members who participated on the CDCT. He noted that
he lived on a street that was in a similar condition to Crest Drive. He had been inspired by the CDCT
efforts to create a neighborhood sensitive situation and had initiated a neighborhood effort to do the same for
his street.
Councilor Pryor remarked that at times the council had to decide between two “right answers.” He
supported the current recommendation, but he reiterated that this was the beginning of a discussion on how
bicycles could be accommodated with regard to access to Lorane Highway and how bicycles, which he
considered to be an important part of the community, could be accommodated in a larger sense.
Mark Schoening, City Engineer for the Public Works Department, provided a brief overview of the context
sensitive solution process. He noted that the CDCT had consisted of abutting property owners, at-large
members from the neighborhood, and two City staff. He stated that abutting property owners were given
primacy in the decision-making process given that they would have to help pay for the improvements. He
conveyed staff’s support for the community recommendation.
Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for everyone who had participated. She averred that it had been
an “unprecedented exercise in community involvement.”
Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment that would move to direct the City Man-
ager to create a working group that would include staff from transportation, parks and open
space, the Crest Drive Community Team, the Eugene Bicycle Coalition and other stake-
holders including appropriate neighborhoods to identify options for bikeways in the south-
west and southeast hills. Councilor Pryor accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilor Bettman thought that as this was moved into the broader community context what worked in this
model should be taken and utilized to create another work group to identify those options.
Councilor Taylor remarked that this was turning out well. She acknowledged that not everyone was happy,
but felt it was coming to a good conclusion. She supported the motion and the friendly amendment.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 10
Regular Meeting
Councilor Solomon asked who would pay for the bike ways to which the amendment referred. Mr.
Schoening replied that it would depend on where they were located.
Councilor Solomon supported the inclusion of bicycle lanes on Storey Boulevard, Crest Drive, and Friendly
Street. She recalled her work on the committee that sought to identify transportation funding solutions. She
explained that the committee had presented a recommendation to the City Council and the council had
“picked and chose” what it wanted. She averred that she could not approve anything carte blanche. She
stressed that as a policy maker she had to address this item from a different perspective than the neighbors
had to. She believed that bicycle lanes were an important part of alternate modes of transportation and
sustainability. She felt an amendment without a funding strategy was “rhetoric.”
Councilor Zelenka appreciated the hard work of the Crest neighbors and City staff on this issue. He said
one of his main concerns as a councilor was livability. He supported the design. He also supported
providing bicycle lanes throughout the City. He observed that there were competing interests in this item
and it would not be possible to make everyone happy. He supported the amendment. He hoped that it
would be possible to make the design friendlier for bicyclists, perhaps with rolled curbs or bicycle paths.
Councilor Clark indicated he would support the amended motion. He asked if in this process of accepting a
change in street widths a precedent was being set. Mr. Klein responded that if this was being used to create
an argument, he did not think it was a winnable argument given that this process arose from a situation with
unusual properties different from much of the City.
Mayor Piercy said the CDCT wanted to remain involved in the next phase. She felt that many bicyclists had
not engaged in this conversation early on because they believed any road created in Eugene would have
bicycle lanes. She averred that any time the City took on an issue related to roads an effort should be made
to engage the bicycling community. She stressed that the City had a commitment to be increasingly bicycle
friendly.
Councilor Taylor did not believe the action would establish a precedent. She agreed that the Crest Drive
situation was unusual and had needed a context sensitive solution. She added that she had some concern
about how people would be assessed. She thought the City should reconsider how residents would be
assessed in a Local Improvement District (LID). She was concerned that some people might lose their
homes.
Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition.
6. ACTION:
Minimum Sidewalk Width Design Standard for the Crest Drive Area
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4927 con-
cerning sidewalk widths in the Crest Drive area, and amending the City’s design standards
and guidelines for Eugene streets, sidewalks, bikeways and access ways, the Eugene Arte-
rial & Collector Street Plan, and the Eugene Local Street Plan.
Mr. Schoening explained that this item was in line with a recommendation to pursue an amendment to the
design standards for minimum sidewalk width, reducing it from five feet to four feet. He stated that the staff
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 11
Regular Meeting
recommendation was to keep the minimum width at five feet as it was considered a comfortable width for
two pedestrians to walk side by side.
Councilor Bettman indicated she would support the motion. She said it would not mandate four-foot
sidewalks in the area; it would leave discretion to reduce width in places that would need it. She asserted
th
that sidewalks were not an adequate width in a project on 29 Avenue and asked how that had been allowed.
Mr. Schoening replied that he was not familiar with that project.
Councilor Zelenka asked why the Crest Drive Neighbors had wanted four-foot sidewalk widths if the
existing codes allowed for a five-foot sidewalk to be narrower where it was necessary. Mr. Schoening
responded that there was not a width to the sidewalk in the recommended design at present. He believed that
the community wanted a design standard that was less than five feet because an exception to the current
code could only be granted based on one of the five exception criteria: topography, historic resources,
wetlands, trees, and inadequate right-of-way.
Councilor Zelenka surmised that the sidewalk would double as a bicycle path. Mr. Schoening affirmed that
it could. Councilor Zelenka thought a four foot wide sidewalk would make it difficult for a bicycle to pass a
pedestrian. Mr. Schoening agreed, adding that it would be difficult on a five foot wide sidewalk as well.
Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:2; councilors Zelenka and Solomon voting in opposi-
tion.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to (1)
request the Planning Commission to approve classifying Friendly Street, Crest Drive and
Storey Boulevard as local streets, and (2) if the Planning Commission approves that classi-
fication, to bring the council an ordinance adopting that classification.
Councilor Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to substitute the word ‘investigate’ for the
word ‘approve.’ The motion maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment.
Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, as amended, 7:0.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to take from the table Consent
Calendar Item E. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item E, adoption of Resolution
4937 authorizing interim and long term financing for Local improvement Projects and ter-
minating the authority under Resolution No. 4807, passed unanimously, 7:0.
Councilor Taylor asked how and when the council could talk about assessments and, in particular, for the
CDCT project. Mayor Piercy responded that she should request a work session.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 12
Regular Meeting
7. ACTION:
Resolution 4938 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property
th
Located at 693 East 16 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Corey Development, LLC)
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4938 approv-
ing a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 693 East
th
16 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Corey Development, LLC).
th
Councilor Clark observed that the councilors had heard much of the discussion on the development on 19
Avenue and Alder Street and that Councilor Zelenka had suggested that perhaps a MUPTE could apply
there so that the developer would not have to build a seven-story building to have a profitable project. He
said in consideration of the projects before the council, and particularly the second one, which had taken into
consideration being context sensitive to the neighborhood, use of the MUPTE was the only way for the
projects to pencil out as they were presented. He averred that opposition to granting the MUPTE in either
case was a de facto indication that the council would prefer very tall buildings, which would be “the only
thing that would then be profitable.” He was concerned about sending this message.
Councilor Bettman opined that a tax exemption was not about how “personable or involved in the
community” a developer may be. She averred that it was irrelevant to the decision to “forego needed tax
revenue.” She said the project was for housing in the University district that would serve the University.
She felt the housing would be profitable and would be built anyway. She asserted that the City had a
“proliferation” of tax breaks and that the “playing field” should be level so everyone paid a fair share. She
believed tax exemptions were only warranted in special circumstances such as in the downtown core.
Councilor Ortiz noted that the council had recently heard a report from Lane County Commissioner Faye
Stewart on the county budget. She observed that tax exemptions did remove potential tax funding from the
county and city coffers. She had voted for the Enterprise Zone and the Urban Renewal District activity
downtown because she believed they would provide a public benefit. She was challenged to find a public
benefit in the MUPTE applications that were on the docket. She noted her request for a work session on the
MUPTE. She felt the council needed to revisit the tax exemption boundaries and consider changing them so
other areas that feature decay, such as the Highway 99 North area, could be included.
Councilor Taylor opposed the MUPTE application. She averred that the tax money was needed and she did
not perceive a demonstrable public benefit in the projects the MUPTE applicants had set forth.
Councilor Zelenka clarified that he had suggested to the neighborhood group opposed to the tall building
th
project at 19 Avenue and Alder Street that a MUPTE would be the wrong tool to use for the purpose of
adjusting the design. He did not believe any of the projects that had been built without the MUPTE in the
University area in the past three years had been over four stories tall. He said he would oppose the
applications because he felt it was difficult to part with General Fund dollars in an era of budget deficits.
He noted that the MUPTE was intended to create housing in the area. He related that the council had asked
staff to look at projects created in the area. He stated that in the past three years, 17 units had been built; of
them, only three had been granted a MUPTE. He surmised that it could not be said that housing was not
being developed there. He could not see the public benefit to granting a MUPTE in that area. He supported
reducing the tax exemption boundary and considering expanding it to other areas, such as the one Councilor
Ortiz had cited.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to substitute a motion to adopt
the resolution, included in the agenda packet in Attachment F on page 398, denying a Mul-
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 13
Regular Meeting
th
tiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 693 East 16 Avenue,
Eugene, Oregon (Corey Development, LLC).
Councilor Pryor observed that they had been talking about a philosophical view of the MUPTE rather than
the merits of the project. He had not heard that the project did not qualify for a MUPTE. He believed using
a MUPTE had merit where a building would not be built without it. He noted that the second project, which
he believed would be a very appropriate use of the exemption, would not be built as presented without the
MUPTE.
Councilor Solomon indicated she would support both MUPTE applications. She felt they were both
excellent projects in needed areas and would provide the University area with better housing stock than
currently existed. She underscored that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the first project had indicated
the land would still be taxed for ten years and then after ten years an estimated $9,069 would be paid on the
improvements annually. She concluded that the lost revenue from the property would be made up 3.3 years
after the exemption ended. She likened passing on this benefit to “cutting off our nose to spite our face.”
Mayor Piercy said it bothered her that they were considering these MUPTE applications prior to holding the
work session on the exemption. She felt that people were told that it was possible to get the exemption in the
University area and they would go through the process to obtain one. She thought this was an unfair
situation for people who were “playing by the rules.”
Councilor Bettman objected to Mayor Piercy’s characterization. She emphasized that the council had
discretion to make a decision to grant or deny the exemption. She disagreed that this was a philosophical
issue, declaring it to be a policy issue.
Councilor Zelenka called the projects good, adding that he hoped they would be built. He repeated that
projects had been built in the University area without the MUPTE.
Councilor Taylor reiterated that the MUPTE had not been guaranteed.
Councilor Ortiz underscored that for her this was about finances. She stated that $30,000 would pay for a
.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) police officer or support person. She needed to see a public benefit from
such tax exemptions.
Councilor Clark pointed out that either way the City would receive more tax money in the long-term. He
said if the MUPTE was granted there would be a gain after ten years for the lifetime of the building. He
stated that this, however, was not the discussion. He averred that now that the council opposed granting the
MUPTE the discussion would change to what sort of building would be built there. He said without the
MUPTE the developer was free to do all of the things within the code that were possible, which included
very little parking and the possibility of six-bedroom units in a very tall building. He underscored that this
too would increase taxes, but it would also increase the long-term negative impact to the neighborhood by
the kind of building the City was encouraging people to build.
Councilor Bettman asked if rentals depreciated on the tax rolls. Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager
for the Community Development Division, responded that once properties were on the tax rolls they tended
to go up by three percent or more annually.
Roll call vote; the motion to substitute the resolution passed, 4:3; councilors Clark, Pryor,
and Solomon voting in opposition.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 14
Regular Meeting
Roll call vote; the substitute motion passed, 4:3; councilors Clark, Pryor, and Solomon vot-
ing in opposition.
8. ACTION:
Resolution 4939 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property
th
Located at 450 East 14 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Twenty LLC, Applicant) (The Fenway)
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt the resolution in Attach-
ment F on page 418 of the council packet denying a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption
th
for residential property located at 450 East 14 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Twenty LLC,
applicant). Roll call vote; the motion passed 4:3; councilors Clark, Pryor, and Solomon
voting in opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 14, 2008 Page 15
Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENT G
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
April 28, 2008
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea
Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum.
th
Deborah Frisch
, 3003 West 11 Avenue, H168, criticized several unidentified city councilors and the City
Manger for what she perceived to be their shortcomings.
Zachary Vishanoff
, a resident living on Patterson Street, advocated for a more transparent City govern-
ment. He suggested proposed expenditures along Franklin Boulevard be the subject of a public hearing.
Regarding the Eugene Water & Electric Board site, he suggested a hearing be held on that; otherwise, the
council would be battling citizens. He believed the City should have a hearing about whether the community
wanted the 2012 Olympic Trials, and that perhaps the hearing should occur during the trials. He noted the
Willamette Week’s recent designation of University of Oregon President David Frohnmayer as its Rogue of
the Week but suggested that the City of Eugene and Nike also colluded to get President Frohnmayer in
trouble over the arena. He suggested that the council Google “Joe Romania” and use “Googie” to see a list
discussing how important the site was.
th
Dan Weinhard
, 751 East 16 Avenue, #112, spoke to the issue of affordable housing. He reminded the
council that he spoke before it and asked for them to contact him about making quad units near the
University of Oregon more affordable. Residents had been given notice and he hoped the council could
convince the owners not to remodel at least one building so residents could remain. He had learned the new
owners were going “upscale” because rich students were easier on the units, but he believed that was in
conflict with the City’s affordable housing policies. He suggested the City could buy the properties using a
loan or it could provide the UO with the authority for eminent domain and $20 million to purchase the
building. He thought the current owners would be encouraged to take the money and build new units. He
reminded the council that the City’s Web site spoke to its keen interest in low-interest housing and its policy
direction as it related to affordable housing.
Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and thanked those who testified for attending.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 28, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
Councilor Solomon thanked those who testified and asked that staff get Mr. Weinhard in contact with Richie
Weinman of the City’s Community Development Department. She said that the City did attempt to
maximize its dollars so low- and middle-income people could still live in Eugene.
Councilor Clark also thanked those who spoke for attending. He noted the absence of frequent speaker
“Drix” and said he was missed.
Mayor Piercy said that Drix held his “pit cleaning” and it was mentioned in the council newsletter that week.
There was a good turnout.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
- December 10, 2007, Work Session
- January 14, 2008, Work Session
- January 16, 2008, Work Session
- March 10, 2008, Work Session
- March 10, 2008, Public Hearing
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FY09
Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program
D. Adoption of Resolution 4940 Authorizing Application for Grant from the Oregon Parks
and Recreation Department for the Acquisition of the East Fork Amazon Headwaters
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Con-
sent Calendar.
Councilor Bettman noted her submission of corrections to the minutes. Mayor Piercy deemed them
approved without objection. Councilor Bettman pulled items B and C.
Councilor Clark pulled item D.
Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item A passed unanimously, 7:0.
Speaking to Item B, Councilor Bettman asked that the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) item
scheduled for June 9 be rescheduled as she had a conflict and could not be present at the meeting. She noted
that there were some items on the tentative working agenda scheduled for a public hearing without a work
session, including the Downtown Code Amendments and the Chapter 2 Planning Commission bylaws
amendments. Mayor Piercy indicated she would follow up.
Roll call vote; Item B passed unanimously, 8:0.
Speaking to Item C, Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the budget but wished to raise some
policy issues with financial implications. She referred to the 18 percent increase in collection charges
assessed by the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and asked for information about billing costs for
wastewater and stormwater. Mr. Ruffier said that the cost was about $1 per bill. Councilor Bettman
thought that seemed like a lot. It did not appear the City had many options. She asked staff to secure
information to help her determine if that was a reasonable amount. Ms. Bettman also noted the lack of a cap
for the rates. She thought a cap was in order and noted the agreement was soon to be renegotiated. She
wanted the City to renegotiate that or to go out for a Request for Proposals. She wanted to be able to
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 28, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
examine alternatives. She thought it might be less expensive if the City did the billing in-house, particularly
if it intended to add additional fees for other purposes to the bill.
Councilor Bettman shared a graph she had distributed showing declining systems development charge
(SDC) revenues and advocated for the council to re-establish the Rates Advisory Committee to reconsider
the SDC rate. She also thought the council should have rates calculated to guarantee Eugene rate payers did
not subsidize the cost of capacity needed to serve new development. She also was concerned that the budget
and capital improvement program presented to the council did not include the expansion of the urban growth
boundary anticipated by Springfield, and the rate increases did not anticipate the additional acreage
contemplated to be added by that city to its boundary. The collection of SDC’s was not jurisdictionally
proportional. Explosive growth was not included, and in 2010 ratepayers were already subsidizing growth
due to the drop in SDC revenues.
Mr. Ruiz said that he had directed staff to work with Springfield on the process of updating the SDC’s in
accordance with City Council policy.
Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation. She said the MWMC jurisdictional agreement contained a
policy that ratepayers would not subsidize the cost of new capacity. If the City began now to modify the
rates that would be a good thing.
Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item C passed unanimously, 8:0.
Speaking to Item D, Councilor Clark expressed discomfort with seeking the amount being requested in the
grant because while he favored acquiring the property in question, he was not sure the property was worth
the amount stated in the AIS because of testimony the advisory committee received about the value of the
property and so would vote no.
Ms. Ortiz asked about the council’s authority in terms of grant applications. Parks and Open Space
Manager Johnny Medlin recalled the instruction staff received from the council in January as it related to the
grant, which it interpreted as authority to move forward. For that reason, the grant was not forwarded to the
Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations.
Mr. Zelenka supported the resolution and commended staff for its work on the grant. He noted that several
appraisals had been made of the properties in question and it was difficult to compare them because they
were based on different factors. He thought the grant used the best information the council had available.
He said that appraisals were not a science. He encouraged other councilors to vote for it.
Councilor Solomon said she had opposed the project from its inception. She asked if the City would secure
another appraisal. Mr. Medlin said staff had received no direction from the council to do so.
Councilor Solomon agreed with the remarks of Councilor Clark. She thought the property overvalued and
unfair to those who might also be seeking the grant funding. She would not like it if another community
tried to do the same thing to Eugene.
Councilor Taylor believed the appraisal was a separate topic from the grant. She questioned why the item
was on the agenda given that the council had already approved grants. She said the council did not have to
approve grants that did not include a match.
Mr. Medlin reported that the State Parks and Recreation Department required such a resolution.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 28, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
Councilor Taylor indicated she would vote for the motion.
Councilor Clark asked if the council did ethics investigations of firms it hired or did ethics investigations.
City Attorney Glenn Klein did not know what background investigation had gone on with the firm involved.
He indicated he could check. He said that generally, the City would do reference checks.
Councilor Clark said that the council was being asked to support a resolution that explicitly concurred with
the value assigned the property by the appraiser. He was troubled by asking for $1.9 million of other
people’s money without more information.
Councilor Bettman asked if the City had an appraisal for the Golden Gardens property before it purchased
it. Mr. Medlin did not think so. Councilor Bettman recalled the City had “picked a number” and paid what
the seller asked. Mr. Medlin said the City had licensed appraisers on staff and the price of Golden Gardens
was relatively low ($10,000 an acre) and it was also specifically targeted within the City’s parks and open
space bond.
Mr. Zelenka recalled that the City did not have an appraisal for the Diamond Parking lot exchange.
Mr. Zelenka said the grant would pay for half the price of the acquisition cost of the properties in question.
He could not say the property in question was overvalued; the appraisers who testified, when asked, did not
identify a problem. The committee asked for a third-party verification that met Yellow Book standards. Mr.
Zelenka agreed that the value of the property was controversial, but did not think “this was the place to pick
that up.” The City was using the best information it had at the time of making the grant application. He
suggested that the City could accept less in grant money if the appraisal was lower.
Roll call vote; the motion passed 6:2; councilors Clark and Solomon voting no.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 28, 2008 Page 4
Work Session