Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/28/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 28, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz , Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka (participated by tele- phone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council Work Session. A. WORK SESSION: PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP Mayor Piercy noted Mr. Zelenka was out of town and would be participating via telephone. She stated City Manager pro tem Angel Jones was also out of town and would be represented by Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell. Mr. Luell introduced Planning Director Lisa Gardner, who provided follow-up information from the joint meeting with the Planning Commission, held on October 24, 2007. At that joint work session, the Planning Commission presented its annual report, and staff outlined the Planning Division Work Program for FY08. To allow adequate time to consider work plan tasks, the council requested a follow-up work session and subsequently identified issues and question to be addressed at the work session. Ms. Gardner indicated that staff prepared responses to those questions and issues, included as Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Questions regarding the implementation of House Bill (HB) 3337 were addressed separately in a memorandum provided to the City Attorney, included as Attachment B to the AIS. If the council approved the motion, as recommended by the City Manager, staff would proceed with the implementation of work program tasks. At this time, it was anticipated that the council would have additional opportunities to provide direction on the following work program tasks: ? Scoping of a comprehensive lands assessment process—prior to beginning the assessment process, staff would provide scoping options to the council for additional direction (Spring 2008). ? Walnut Station Mixed Use Center—the council would be asked to approve the vision concept, including the recommended form based code (Summer 2008). ? Infill Compatibility and Opportunity Siting—the council would be receiving ongoing periodic updates to the progress of both work program tasks through council memos and newsletter. Follow- ing completion of the task team work, proposed compatibility standards and opportunity siting strategies or proposals would be forwarded to council for direction and/or approval (Fall 2008/Winter 2009). MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 1 Work Session ? Neighborhood based refinements plans—staff would provide council updates on scoping of plan updates through council memos. Following the scoping phase, it was anticipated that additional tasks would be proposed in the FY09 work program. ? Ongoing code amendments—following the completion of the Minor Code Amendment process initiated in FY07, staff would pursue the development of an implementation strategy for ongoing code amendments (Fall 2009). ? In addition to the above mentioned specific tasks, the council would receive updates on other plan- ning projects and programs as appropriate through council memos, council newsletters, or requests for work sessions when additional specific direction was needed. Mayor Piercy thanked staff for coming back to the council and responding to councilors’ questions. Ms. Taylor, referring to HB 3337, asked if the City Council approved the work program was it also approving a commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Gardner responded the recommendation from the Planning Commission was to provide all of the necessary tools to look at all initiatives including infill, mixed use centers (MUC), and opportunity siting by having a comprehensive assessment of all land types, including natural resources and redevelopment capacity. Much of the redevelopment capacity lay in industrial and commercial properties, thus the Commission recommended conducting a comprehensive study. She confirmed Ms. Taylor’s statement that element would need to be removed from the recommenda- tion if the council did not wish to proceed with the study. Ms. Taylor understood that the urban growth boundary (UGB) did not need to be changed until it was looked at through the normal review process. Ms. Gardner stated review of the UGB was not part of the work program task before the council today. City Attorney Emily Jerome said the results of a land assessment would dictate whether the council needed to make any changes, such as densifying. HB 3337 was focused in amending statutes pertaining to residential land, but required establishment of a UGB separate from Springfield. At the time the UGB was established, regional plans, which currently were residential and industrial, would need to have a Eugene focus. Currently, the acknowledged residential land study went to 2015 while the commercial and industrial land studies went through 2010. Prior to the expiration of these studies, there should be an assessment of all of these lands by 2010. The City should expect to hear from the State Department of Lane Conservation and Development (DLCD) in 2014 regarding the next periodic review. Ms. Bettman said she had some amendments when the motion was on the table, one to limit the work program to address only the deadline driven requirements detailed in HB 3337 and the other to add to amendments to the code incorporating the growth management policies. Noting the council had been left out, under the heading “Regional Transportation Planning” she wanted to add council to the list of bodies that Planning staff would assist with transportation planning. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about a form-based code, stating that staff initiated a policy change without bringing it to the council. She was concerned it looked at the building design as opposed to the use, noting different uses had different impacts. Focusing on the structure was not enough to protect adjacent land uses. She was concerned there needed to be additional resources and reprioritization to get water quality protection ordinances or the water resources overlay going. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Gardner responded clear direction from the City Council regarding raising the priority would be helpful. It would require staff to reprioritize the work program. Although it had not been fully scoped, implementing the ordinance would require additional staff time. Mr. Clark inquired about the legal status of any lands study the City would conduct. Ms. Jerome replied that would be up to the council. At the time of the analysis and determination, there would be background information with which the council could do as it wanted. Depending on results of the analysis and assessment, options would be presented to the council. Until those options were taken, they were simply findings for future action. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Jerome said the statutes that governed the studies allowed cities to use data that was gathered since the last periodic review. When conducting a study shortly after periodic review, the statute required going back five years. At the time of periodic review, jurisdictions were required to demonstrate compliance with regulations showing a 20-year supply of land was available in each of the categories. DLCD could be concerned with the age of the data, but statutorily, jurisdictions were permitted to use data gathered since the last periodic review. Mr. Clark asked if the statute did not compel the City of Eugene to adjust its code or policies, but simply required the City to study the issue, what would Eugene be required to do after the City of Springfield established its UGB. He opined until the City of Eugene completed its own residential, commercial and industrial land studies it would be relying on the “old” adopted, acknowledged studies under Goal 10. Until the City of Eugene completed its own studies, it would be relying on 1999 studies that included land in Springfield, to say there was enough land in the UGB, although Springfield would be operating under its own studies. Mr. Clark asked what the legal ramifications for the City of Eugene would or could be for leaning on data that included land in Springfield when the City of Springfield was already acting independently. Ms. Jerome said the laws clearly indicated that every jurisdiction needed to rely on an existing, adopted, and DLCD- acknowledged plan. Until invalidated by the City Council or until time ran out, that was the 1999 Residential Lands Study, which geographically included Springfield land. If Springfield took actions to remove residential lands that the City of Eugene relied on, just as they could do now, the City of Eugene would need to continue to track that information. Although this presented a unique situation, it was defensible. Ms. Bettman understood Springfield lacked residential land in comparison to Eugene because Springfield had built at low densities compared to Eugene. She thought if done right, refinement plans could be a high priority, but she did not believe that had been demonstrated in the past. She had repeatedly raised the issue of updating refinement plans on an area specific basis in each neighborhood. Responding to questions from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Gardner said the MUC concept was a high priority for which resources had been allocated. She added it was not limited to new development, but rather embedded in infill compatibility, opportunity siting and transportation corridor planning, which could be applied to th other transportation corridors, such as West 11 Avenue. The MUC concept acknowledged that commercial development and redevelopment was a critical component of a thriving MUC that included commercial, residential and transit, at the very least. Ms. Bettman claimed the concept had been generalized to the point where it was an “instrument of destruction” rather achieving the original objectives. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked if staff could provide a memorandum indicating which of the growth management policies had been incorporated into code, and which ones had not; and of those not yet incorporated, what was the timeline for doing so. He understood that it was important for the appearance of buildings to relate to the surrounding neighborhood, noting that the tenants were temporary while the buildings were there for a long time. A form-based code was inadequate because tenants and uses could change, and with those changes, the impacts could also change. He wanted a hybrid that would incorporate a form-based code with the existing code. Ms. Gardner said staff would return with the Walnut Station MUC project vision in the near future to talk about form based code as a tool and how it could be applied. Staff could address the impact of uses at that time. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Gardner confirmed some of the projects on the work program had multi-year timelines, some carried forward from previous years, and others that would carry forward into the future. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy regarding growth management policies, Mr. Nystrom said the growth management policies as currently written could not simply be imported into the existing code and used for individual land use applications. Instead, those policies needed to be looked at comprehensively. Addressing Mr. Zelenka’s comments, Mr. Nystrom said staff could try as a first step, to look at how some of those policies had found their way into code, and whether or not there were provisions that tried to implement some of the growth management policies. The growth management policies were not originally written nor adopted by the City Council with the intent of incorporating them into code, but rather were broad and more global in nature. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the FY08 Planning Commis- sion and Planning Division work program contained in the attached annual report. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add the “City Council along with the other jurisdictions and departments” under Regional and Local Transportation Planning. Ms. Gardner said there was a response in the packet on the issue. The Regional and Local Transportation Planning task reflected a supporting role that the Planning Division had in the implementation of council directions, thus assuming there had already been council direction, and staff would not be initiating new projects. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add “in response to City Council direction assist Public Works” or “as per council policy.” Ms. Bettman said although she was not on the City Council when the growth management policies were developed, she had participated as a neighborhood leader in the Land Use Code Update and as a councilor in adopting the Land Use Code Update. In her memory this was something that had met much resistance from the organization but most of the people she knew who participated in creating those policies thought they were going to be the governing policies of the code. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include in the code amendments now being considered by the Planning Commission incorpo- rating the growth management policies into Chapter 9 for the purpose of evaluat- ing land use decisions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman said this would create a purpose at the beginning of the code so that staff had a guideline to interpret the provisions. There currently were no unifying principles for staff interpretation. Mayor Piercy asked if incorporating the growth management policies into Chapter 9 in the form of governing policies of code opposed to specific codes was workable. Ms. Bettman said if this motion passed it was not automatically incorporated into code, but began the process of considering them as a code amendment along with the other approximately 20 code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nystrom said it was important to understand how the growth management policies would become part of the code. Where they resided in the code could make a difference on how they were used. He opined if they were imported into a purpose section at the beginning of Chapter 9 about how code was implemented and some of the overarching sections at the beginning of the code, it was very different than importing them into approval criteria for land use applications, and would have very different ramifications. Ms. Gardner noted there were currently 20 code amendments moving forward of 200 suggestions received through the public process, for which approximately 80 percent of the work was completed. She suggested that the 80 percent progress on the 20 code amendments not be interrupted, but rather that any changes be applied to future work. Ms. Bettman opposed Ms. Gardner’s suggestion, saying that it postponed the effort yet again, and it should have been in the initial list. Ms. Bettman had been assured it would be included in the current work. Ms. Ortiz said although Ms. Bettman’s proposal sounded good, she did not want to go back over the work already completed, and apply the principles. Although she understood Ms. Bettman’s desire, she felt bound to keep moving. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Gardner stated there were approximately 180 suggestions to review for further action. Ms. Solomon was willing to have the discussion, and although not totally opposed to Ms. Bettman’s concept, she was opposed to Ms. Bettman bringing the issue in at this point. Ms. Solomon suggested having a separate work session on the issue. She opined it was not clear what everyone’s expectations were around the table. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Solomon. Although not as familiar with the growth management policies as Ms. Bettman, Mr. Clark understood that intended motions came before the council as a courtesy to other council members with some time to consider them before acting on them and was therefore unprepared to consider Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Pryor asserted policies and procedures were related but kept separate. Policies defined what would be done, and the procedures were the mechanisms to carry out the policies. The code was equivalent to procedure, i.e., the way in which we do things; whereas policies, such as those before council, were more descriptive of what the council wanted to accomplish. Mr. Pryor was okay with including the growth management policies, as policies, and not as part of the procedures. He would be comfortable if the growth management policies were a preamble or prefacing element that said that the growth management policies governed the City’s procedure, but he was not comfortable with inserting them in the middle of each set of procedures, which would be “crazy.” He liked the growth management policies, and thought it was time to MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 5 Work Session revisit them, since they had been adopted in 1998. Mr. Pryor averred that they “absolutely, positively, explicitly have to be as a preamble. . .rather than something inserted into the specific procedural code.” Ms. Taylor said this was not new, but had been brought up numerous times, most recently during the council’s discussion of the Planning Commission work program. She shared Ms. Bettman’s memory, but had been a member of the City Council when the growth management policies were adopted. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark. He supported bringing the issue to the City Council in a work session, the appropriate format to argue policy versus code. He did not want to jam the growth management policies into a project in which 80 percent of the work was already done. Ms. Bettman said almost 100 percent of the growth management policies work was done and they had never been implemented. They were supposed to be overarching governing policies for land use and zoning decisions, but never have been. The way to do that was to put them in the code as overarching governing policies so that new code provisions or interpretations of code had a distinct directive that people could turn to, to say that needed to be a policy by which decisions were made. She denied this had been “jammed in”, stating she had given plenty of notice to council that this was an issue and had spoken to staff during the minor code amendment process. Mayor Piercy understood that Ms. Bettman was not asking for it to be put into the procedural part of the code but rather in the overarching policies of guiding the code. Ms. Bettman said it would mean that code provisions and code interpretation had to be consistent with those policies. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Nystrom said, although caution was warranted, it would not present a problem if the growth management policies were included in the preamble to provide a context for how codes were adopted and how new provisions were added. He said it would be difficult to use the growth management policies as approval criteria, and would present complications if that was the intent. Ms. Gardner referred to Mr. Zelenka’s request for a memorandum from staff delineating which of the growth management policies were already in the code, and suggested staff could include background to enable council to determine if the issue warranted a work session. Ms. Solomon noted confusion around the table about what exactly the council was discussing. As she looked at the growth management policies, she believed the City Council had implemented them as well as they could. She disagreed that the council had not tried to implement those policies, noting they showed up in almost every AIS. She was sorry Ms. Bettman was so cynical about the work done by the council and opined the council had done a good job of implementing those policies. Mr. Pryor stated because there were still questions around the table, and he wanted to reach a conclusion in a thoughtful and deliberate way, he could not support Ms. Bettman’s amendment, but did not want it to fall off the table. Mr. Zelenka said the growth management policies were long-standing adopted City policies. It was important that they get incorporated into the code as an overarching policy direction, but he did not want to MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 6 Work Session see the minor code process grind to a halt. He suggested incorporating them into the preamble of the City Code. He proposed looking at them before the council’s summer break. Ms. Bettman accepted Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion as a friendly amendment to her proposed amendment to the motion. Ms. Taylor said anyone involved in civic activities in 1995-1996 could not help being aware of the broad- based, expensive effort on the part of the City which the City could not afford to replicate. Mr. Clark said it was the purview of every City Council to set its policies during its time of service. While he appreciated and respected all of the public input that went into the growth management policies development twelve years ago, he was not as familiar with them as he would like. He asked for a work session to review the growth management policies. He felt strange encumbering a future council to the policies when they might want to change them. Ms. Ortiz said she and her daughter had been active in the community in the mid-1990s and she never heard anything about the growth management policies process in the Bethel neighborhood. She did not know what had been done for outreach. She asked if the motion passed, would the work already completed move forward. Ms. Gardner responded that passage of the motion would not affect the work currently underway on the 20 code amendments in process. Mayor Piercy summarized the motion on the table. Work would continue on the code amendments that were in motion. In the future the City Council would investigate how this would apply to procedure parts of Chapter 9. The growth management policies would only be put in the code as an overarching policy to the code, having basically the same emphasis as they now have. The motion passed, 5:3, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting in opposi- tion. Mr. Pryor explained his vote, stating that his vote was an acknowledgement that this was an official City policy that needed to be recognized in the appropriate place. He explicitly heard that it would be in a place where it would not be applied procedurally; it would be applied as an overarching policy. Ms. Jerome said we are talking about incorporating, as part of the pending minor code amendments, incorporation of growth management polices into Chapter 9 to serve as policy direction and to direct the city manager to schedule a future work session to discuss implementation of them. Ms. Bettman: As criteria. Ms. Jerome: As criteria. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the work program of the Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Planning Commission to address only the deadline driven requirements de- tailed in HB 3337 which were the inventory of existing residential capacity, the residential demand analysis and determination, and to specifically delete consid- eration of UGB boundary changes other than any consideration required by HB 3337. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman explained the work program should be focused on only what was legally required until the council had a work session. Her objection was based on a pre-supposed decision by the council. Ms. Solomon asserted that the motion was completely inappropriate and premature in light of the up- coming work session in January. She was not prepared to move on the proposal. Mr. Clark stated he had many additional questions about implementation of HB 3337 and was not prepared to have the fuller discussion today, prior to the January work session. He wanted a much fuller discussion on the specific motion because it removed some issues that needed more discussion. He was not interested in changing or limiting the staff recommendation. Ms. Gardner said if the City Council approved the work program as recommended, it would be approving staff moving forward and scoping a commercial and residential lands assessment. Staff would return to the council before any further steps were taken for approval. Ms. Bettman said the council was authorizing policy changes by accepting the work program. Ms. Ortiz wanted to move forward, noting a number of people from the community whom she respected had signed a letter asking the City Council to move forward. She said she would vote against Ms. Bettman’s motion. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Jerome said it was the City Council’s prerogative to set its policy, that policy could differ from past policy, and the council could act on the issue in any way it saw fit. Mr. Zelenka wanted to move forward with what the council needed to move forward with, which was a housing study and having a fuller discussion on January 14, 2008, about the other issues when there was sufficient time to dedicate to the topic. He said he would support the motion on the table. The motion failed, 3:5, councilors Clark, Ortiz, Poling, Prior, and Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the Planning Commission work program to elevate the water quality protection ordinance and the water re- sources conservation overlay zone. Mr. Clark asked Ms. Bettman why it deserved a higher priority. Ms. Bettman said it had been too long delayed, , it was not a high priority for the Planning Commission according to the recommended work plan; and because it was not made a high enough priority, Council was not acting on it. Mr. Pryor said he liked that staff used its expertise and professionalism to develop a work program it felt would be most effective within the available resources and time they had to work. When councilors elevated things because they liked them, or they were popular with councilors, the council was saying it wanted to provide a direction based on preference for which it was not as well informed as staff. He was inclined to stick with the work program as submitted because staff knew what resources were available and they were the ones who had to do the work. While recognizing it was the purview of the City Council to set priority, in this case, the council needed to be informed by staff, and he felt the work program as submitted MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 8 Work Session was informed. He was not inclined to make changes, recognizing if one thing was pushed up, something else would need to be pushed down, and he was not included to push anything down that staff had set as a priority because staff priorities were reasonable at this point. Mr. Clark said although he was not fully versed on why staff had prioritized the work program as it had, he assumed staff knew what they were talking about. He asked Ms. Bettman what she would identify as a lower priority as a trade-off to elevate her suggestion. Ms. Bettman asked if other communities had a rotating code that was constantly being amended. The City had undertaken a huge process with the Land Use Code Update, had processed hundreds of code amendments since then, and was planning a process to continuously update the code. She said it was not necessary. There was room in the Planning Division to pursue clean water. Ms. Solomon, concurring with Mr. Clark, said in order to elevate the clean water elements, something else would need to be lowered in priority and she was not willing to do so today without further discussion. The proposed motion circumvented the process of discussion and transparency. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Ze- lenka voting in favor and Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote of opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the Planning Division work program because it did not reflect her priorities based on her constituents priorities. She strenuously objected to adopting council policy reversal via the work program, noting it was PDD that put the changes into the work program. The motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: SEQUENCING OF FINANCIAL MEASURES TO PRESENT TO VOTERS Mr. Zelenka said he was worried about the May 2008 levy vote being too early, which meant pushing the levy out to November 2008. This would put the levy and the City Hall vote on the same ballot and he was opposed to this scenario. Mr. Zelenka disconnected from the telephone connection. Central Services Executive Director Jim Carlson provided the staff report. The purpose of the agenda item was to have a high level discussion about items to be placed on the ballot over the next several years, especially in 2008. There were two property tax measures proposed to go before voters during 2008: ? Property tax levy (could be General Obligation [G.O.] Bond or capital local option levy) for trans- portation system capital preservation projects in May 2008. This item was scheduled for council discussion on December 10, 2007, with follow-up discussion on January 14, 2008, and council ac- tion on February 11, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 9 Work Session ? City Hall and Police Patrol Facility G.O. Bond measure in November 2008. This item was sched- uled to be discussed by the council on December 12, 2007, and on several additional dates during 2008. Mr. Clark said he would be surprised if the Oregon Legislature did anything about transportation funding during the Special Session in 2008 that would be helpful to the City of Eugene in fixing the transportation backlog. However, he was hesitant to schedule the City’s pavement preservation capital project in May 2008, on the small chance that the Legislature would pass pertinent legislation, and following the defeat of the local gas tax measure to support pavement preservation in November 2007. He was more inclined to offer a total package to fix the whole problem in November 2008. It was wise to consider the City Hall measure at a future point beyond the pavement preservation measure. Ms. Taylor wanted to place the pavement preservation bond on the May 2008 ballot. Other efforts should be taken to do something about the roads before then. City Hall should not be considered in November 2008. She would not support the motion. She disagreed that the issues should be combined. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Taylor, noting that streets needed to be addressed first, perhaps during the current budget cycle. He said although staff deserved a new City Hall, the larger community needed to be listened to. Mayor Piercy said whatever was put on the ballot the City Council should do its utmost to have all councilors in support of the measures, and should commit to do whatever it takes to get the message out to the public. Mr. Poling noted this motion would approve a tentative election schedule that could be modified by the council. It would give staff the go ahead and develop a plan. He was concerned about placing City Hall and Police patrol facilities on the November 2008 ballot. He had received several telephone calls from constituents indicating that they would not approve anything until the streets were fixed. He wanted to hold the November 2008 date in the event council decided to use it. Ms. Bettman said she was willing to consider putting the pavement preservation measure on the May 2008 ballot. The council owed it to the voters to vote the City Hall issue up or down. Although she might support having it on the ballot, there would not be unanimity on council to campaign for it with the Police patrol facility being at Roosevelt. If it had been co-located at City Hall, she would have enthusiastically supported and campaigned for it. She endorsed the tentative election schedule although she did not endorse any of the ballot measures. Ms. Ortiz said she was not prepared to put both motions on the table. She said she supported the pavement preservation program, and agreed with Mayor Piercy’s comments about the council being as united as possible. She said she had concerns about putting the City Hall measure on the ballot in November 2008, noting there was not community support for it. She said she was not willing to put energy into something that would not pass. Mr. Pryor said the tentative election schedule implied a priority listing for the City. Continuing to keep City Hall on the November 2008 ballot sent a signal that the City Council still considered that to be a high priority project over and above other things the community thought the council should be focusing on. He suggested moving the City Hall facility and Police patrol facility bond to the year 2010. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor regarding City Hall, in terms of a bond measure in 2010. He said the public made it clear at the November 2007 election how they felt about passing funding measures, expecting the City Council to do a more thorough job with the money available, and addressing the City’s priorities before they would approve anything additional. He added the City Council needed to rebuild trust with the community. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Carlson said considering separating City Hall and the Police patrol facility was up to the discretion of the City Council. Ms. Solomon said the police were a high priority for her, and they were not currently in a safe situation. Moving the police patrol facility bond measure to 2010 sent the message to the voters that police were not a priority. Mr. Carlson said keeping City Hall and police patrol together made sense, in that it was a combined need. The work done to-date included development of options for incremental improvements, including looking at the old Federal building for municipal court, a separate police patrol facility and the degree of consolidation on the existing City Hall site. He opined the consultant team would provide options that would enable the City Council to proceed with portions while not proceeding with the entire project. Another question the council would need to weigh would be what, if anything, could or should be done with existing resources without going to the voters. Ms. Solomon said she was willing to move forward with the tentative election schedule, although the council needed more discussion around City Hall and police patrol. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to tentatively support the tentative elec- tion schedule. Ms. Taylor moved to delete City Hall. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Clark moved to amend the motion to put City Hall out to at least 2009 and the pavement preservation issue to November 2008. There was no second to the mo- tion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to move City Hall to 2010. The motion to amend passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The motion as amended passed, 6:1, with councilor Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 11 Work Session