Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: July 14, 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. April 16, 2008, Work Session, May 12, 2008, Work Session, May 12, 2008, City Council Meeting, May 14, 2008, Work Session, May 19, 2008, Public Hearing, May 27, 2008, Work Session, and May 28, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.April 16, 2008, Work Session B.May 12, 2008, Work Session C.May 12, 2008, City Council Meeting D.May 14, 2008, Work Session E.May 19, 2008, Public Hearing F.May 27, 2008, Work Session G.May 28, 2008, Work Session 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\M080714\S0807142A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 16, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Beam Development Proposal City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced Denny Braud, senior development analyst for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), and asked him to review the information. Mr. Braud provided an overview of the Beam Development Proposal with the aid of power points. He stated that currently the project was in its due diligence period, scheduled to be completed by May 8. He said Beam Development was in negotiations with a variety of potential tenants, including the Oregon Research Institute (ORI). He noted that ORI would be a significant tenant. He reported that Beam planned to build a five-story building on the vacant lot, with parking underneath. He said Beam had indicated that a commitment from a potential tenant would be necessary for the building to go forward. He added that Beam intended to refurbish the Centre Court building prior to construction of the new building. Mr. Braud reported that the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) had reviewed the pro forma for the project, which included cost estimates. He said Beam continued to refine its construction cost estimates. He related that the ERAC had expressed concern that the construction costs in the pro forma seemed low. He noted that the projection that the building would rent for $2 per square foot for retail was considered to be an aggressive assumption. Mr. Braud reviewed the proposed Urban Renewal Agency (URA) terms. He commented that the profit margin projection appeared to be small even with aggressive assumptions in regard to revenue. He stated that Beam was not willing to make a financial commitment prior to May 8. Mr. Braud summarized three options for the council to consider: 1. The URA would purchase the property and sell it to Beam and assist with the financing of the project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 1 Work Session 2. The City would attempt to renegotiate the purchase option timeline and would assign the purchase options to Beam. 3. The URA would decide during its due diligence period not to acquire the properties. Mayor Piercy asked if a meeting with Connor/Woolley had been set up regarding the properties. Mr. Braud replied that initial discussions had occurred. He said the City had extended a request for additional time. Ms. Bettman opined that all three options seemed to indicate the project was not workable. She felt it was “contingent on the contingencies.” She thought a modified Option 1 might work. She called Option 2 a “poison pill.” She said the City should buy the property by July 1. She averred that the City had the resources to go out for another Request for Proposals (RFP) if necessary. She believed it was an attractive project and another developer would undertake it if Beam could not. She also did not see a reason why the project money needed to include Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) money. She stated that there was $2 million in the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) assets and $4 million in URA assets. She believed the City could secure the loan with the other assets in order to pursue the HUD money. She recalled that originally the HUD money was only slated to be spent on acquisition and said it could still be used for that. Mr. Braud stated that the BEDI grant had to be used with the Section 108 guaranteed loan money. He said they were negotiating with the goal of having Beam make a $475,000 deposit by May 8. He related that with that deposit the City intended to move forward with the purchase of the property. He explained that the problem arose when it became apparent that Beam was unwilling to make the deposit at this time. Ms. Taylor asked who made the recommendation in Option 2. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones responded that the options before the council had been developed prior to Mr. Ruiz’ arrival as City Manager. Ms. Taylor felt the City should purchase the property if necessary. She opined that the project provided the most promise for the downtown area. She disagreed with people who were concerned that spending money on this project would preclude spending on another project, adding that the City should focus on doing the Beam project right. Ms. Taylor asked how much the City was helping ORI to decide on taking up tenancy in the Beam building. Mr. Braud replied that the City would extend as much assistance to Beam as it could to help garner ORI for a tenant. He noted that Beam had the ability to pass on benefits, such as low-cost financing. Susan Muir, Executive Director of PDD, stated that she was meeting with the director of ORI regarding their decision-making process as they looked at a number of sites in the downtown area. She reiterated staff’s willingness to do what was necessary. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Braud stated that the option agreement would be extended with the recommended motion. He noted that the City had paid additional option money when extending options in the past. Ms. Taylor reiterated her support for doing whatever it took to helping Beam succeed, even if that included purchasing the property. She was not in favor of the motion as stated. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Braud explained that the $19 million listed in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) included the Washburne Building. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark asked if the preliminary work, such as an environmental assessment, had begun. Mr. Braud affirmed that there had been an environmental assessment of the Centre Court Building and Beam had undertaken some work on asbestos in the building. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Braud confirmed that Beam would be taking a another look at the building prior to making a commitment to buy it. Mr. Clark asked what was known about asbestos levels in the building. Mr. Braud replied that it was assumed asbestos was in the building, but Beam would need to conduct its own asbestos investigation. He added that the City was working under the assumption that the purchase option had been assigned to the purchaser. Mr. Clark asked for information regarding asbestos levels. Mr. Braud responded that he did not have the information but would try to find it for Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark asked who else was “courting” ORI. Ms. Muir replied that she was not sure the City was aware of all of the offers on the table for them and she was also not sure they should speak to that. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Muir said the City was not actively helping anyone else. Mr. Clark wondered how tying up all of the URA money in the Beam project would affect the RFP that was out for the property across from the public library. Mr. Braud replied that it was not yet known what the proposals would look like. He said given the City’s prior experience he would anticipate that the City would have to participate in the project to a certain extent. He added that the “numbers were challenging downtown.” Mr. Clark asked if it was possible that the City could find itself in a bind if it applied all of the funding to the Beam project. Mr. Braud responded that there were a lot of contingencies in the Beam project. He thought it possible that if the City purchased the property, and Beam backed out, the City would have a substantial investment there and would have to initiate another RFP process for another project. Mr. Clark was troubled by this. He was aware of several potential RFPs for the property across from the library. He was concerned that the City would find itself in a position of owning a “$3 million hole in the th ground” with no plan to fill it and hampering the ability to develop the 10 Avenue site. Mr. Clark noted that the AIS indicated that the City was counting on Beam bringing $4 million in equity and asked where this would come from. Mr. Braud responded that it was comprised of a combination of cash and deferred developer fees. Mr. Zelenka supported the project. He recalled that he had pushed for Beam to be involved in this based on the Beam projects he had toured in Portland. He observed that a majority of the obstacles to the develop- ment were on the Beam side of things. He did not want to own the properties without there being a good chance that Beam would move forward. He underscored that at present, the City did not have a project, and neither did Beam. He felt that given time Beam could resolve its uncertainties. He asked if they would be willing to pay for an extension. Mike Sullivan, division manager for the PDD Community Development Division, responded that at present it was not known how much the extension would cost. He said the history on such options was that changes in terms cost an investment in cash. He related that the City had started a discussion with Beam and asked them to indicate under which conditions they would bring money to the table. He stated that until there was a clear picture from the seller regarding what might be involved it would be difficult to return to Beam. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked if Beam had another tenant in mind. He understood that ORI was currently a tenant in another Connor/Woolley building. Mr. Braud replied that Beam was talking to other tenants, but none that were on the scale of ORI. Mr. Pryor saw this as a conflict between the City’s willingness to take risks versus its desire to take control of this site. He questioned how much the City was willing to pay for certainty and if it was willing to take on the risk. He surmised that staff was informing the council about the risks involved with the money, because it was public money. He averred that as policy makers they could choose to decide how much risk to take with that money. He commented that he did not want to walk away but he also did not want to risk the public’s money without anything on the table. He felt that Option 2 was far less risky than Option 1. He was concerned about the project, but he could not bring himself to take too much risk with public money. He averred that the public expected the council to be prudent with their money. th Ms. Bettman declared that the RFP on the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street site would be threatened if the Centre Court project failed. She felt Option 2 would put the fate of the project in the hands of Con- nor/Woolley. She alleged that Connor/Woolley was “courting” ORI by lowering its rent. She agreed that Option 1 needed help, but she believed they should try to move it forward. She asserted that the City could remedy some of the uncertainties. She suggested that the City propose that it was willing to purchase the project by July 8 if Beam Development was willing to put down $475,000 on the property by May 1. Mr. Sullivan said staff had not offered this type of option to Beam because they were working within the council-authorized options. He related that to-date Beam had indicated it was not willing to put the resources forward. Ms. Bettman believed the City would be well-positioned with a non-refundable deposit and the promise of a purchase. Mr. Clark echoed a desire to bring the project to fruition. He also felt the developer’s track record was good and staff had done a great job in working with Beam. His chief concerns lay in potential liabilities, such as a level 2 environmental study revealing more asbestos than had been previously supposed and/or Beam pulling out. He said in this case the City would have purchased a hole in the ground, with no way to fill it, and a building with asbestos. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Braud stated that it was not likely that Beam would qualify for $17 million in financing from the bank without a firm commitment from tenants. Mr. Clark noted that he had office space one block from this building that cost approximately $1 per square foot. He was not certain the assumptions of $1.60 and $2 per square foot were realistic. He felt any banker would look at this and ask the same questions. He noted that the positive income margins on the Beam plan were small. He had extrapolated from the recent election that the citizens wanted the councilors to make sensible decisions. He asked if the AIS was accurate regarding a guarantee of a 13 percent profit. Mr. Braud responded that a portion of the BEDI grant would be put into the project as a loan but that portion of the financing would only be repaid if Beam achieved a targeted return of 13 percent. He noted that this was similar to what had been done with other projects. Mr. Clark surmised that the City was saying if market conditions did not work out the City was willing to “take a hit.” In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Braud affirmed that Beam had not met its milestones, such as attaining financing and commitments from potential tenants. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Clark asked what would give the City confidence that more time would provide the opportunity to meet its milestones in the future. Mr. Braud replied that staff had worked with Beam on this particular recommendation. He said they had agreed with Beam that its best opportunity would be to allow the company more time to go through the approval process with the bank. He added that while there was no guarantee, this represented the best opportunity for Beam to succeed in staff’s opinion. th Mr. Zelenka remarked that he would be “shocked” if any development occurred at the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street site without a subsidy. He ascertained from Ms. Jones that Beam Development had asked for an extension. He said if he thought this was a “hot property” he would be more inclined to purchase the property. He thought the risk of assuming the City could purchase it and find another entity to redevelop it was great. He related that he had spoken to Peter Eggspuehler at a meeting and had asked him what issues had arisen in relation to moving forward. Mr. Eggspuehler indicated to him that getting the bank financing was critical, as was “nailing down” the tax credits, which was not possible by May 1. He supported giving them an extension. Ms. Solomon averred that at this point Beam had been “all talk” and no money. She noted that a year had passed since the City had initiated work with the development company. She did not feel the City was any closer to having the site redeveloped and questioned why. She opposed the City’s purchase of the building. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Braud clarified that the options listed were for both buildings. Ms. Solomon asked if renegotiating the price on the Washburne Building meant the City would have to let its option expire. Mr. Braud responded that Beam’s interest in the Washburne Building had to do with having a long-term vision for that block. He averred that there was a lot more value that could be generated in the Washburne Building going forward than was in the Centre Court Building. He said the question at this point was whether Beam was willing to buy the property at the current price. Ms. Solomon asked if it was possible to negotiate with them to come down in price. Mr. Sullivan responded that discussions had begun between Connor/Woolley and Beam Development at the City’s suggestion. He related that Connor/Woolley had come back to the City and indicated they would be willing to discuss price. Ms. Solomon wanted to see more commitment from Beam in the form “of a check.” Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about the project. She had heard the voters “loud and clear” and believed that they had indicated they did not want the spending limit of the Urban Renewal District to be increased but they supported working within the existing financial parameters. She agreed with Mr. Zelenka that people were not “flocking” to buy the property. She wanted to do something while there was some momentum. She believed the property redevelopment across from the library hinged on the Centre Court Building redevelopment. She did not perceive owning the building as a negative result. Mr. Sullivan noted that staff believed the price on the Centre Court Building to be fair. Mr. Pryor stated that the reason he intended to place Option 2 on the table was because it would move them toward getting the commitment. He thought that rather than buying the building and hoping it would work out, Option 2 would move Beam Development toward making more of a financial commitment. He said Beam would not make its commitment prior to May 8 but it also would not commit the City’s money to it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the Agency Director to 1) work with Beam Development and the property owner to extend the timeline for the purchase option agreements on the Centre Court Building and adjacent lot, and the Washburne Building, 2) work towards an assignment of the purchase options to Beam, and 3) continue to work with Beam on elements of acquisition and redevelopment financing consistent with the amounts and terms outlined in this agenda item. If an extension of the option agreement timeline is not approved prior to May 7, then the Agency Director shall inform the property owners and the escrow agent that the Urban Renewal Agency will not be acquiring the property and the deposit should be returned. If a satisfactory extension is approved, the Agency Director shall bring back the terms to be included in the assignment of the purchase options to Beam as soon as practicable. Ms. Bettman supported extending the timeline but she believed the City would be making a big mistake if it only pursued this. She wanted to combine encouraging Beam to renegotiate the timeline on the option and asking them for a non-refundable deposit of $475,000 by May 1 if the URA committed to purchasing the property by July 8. She asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to structure language for a substitute motion to place on the table. Ms. Solomon reiterated that it was incumbent on the council and the URA to help out the entity that won the RFP for the site across from the library. She called it foolish to place “all of the eggs in one basket” by purchasing the Centre Court site. She asked whether the City would pay whatever costs were associated with the extension according to the motion on the table. Mr. Pryor responded that his assumption was that Beam Development would assume this responsibility. Mr. Braud related that staff had suggested sharing the cost of an extension should it cost anything. Mr. Pryor preferred to hold Beam responsible for any costs. Mr. Zelenka hoped Connor/Woolley would view the extension as a way to make the project work to the benefit of both the community and themselves. He indicated he would oppose Ms. Bettman’s substitute motion as he did not want to commit to purchasing the property. Ms. Taylor averred that the City had to take some risk. She opined that splitting up ownership of the downtown property was a goal in itself. She believed that the City was already taking some risk with existing money. She asserted that the City should put everything it had into trying to help Beam Develop- ment. Mr. Clark commented that he hoped that the Opus Group would continue interest in redeveloping the th downtown. He knew of at least one local developer that had an RFP for the 10 Avenue site. He would hate to see the City in a position in which only an out-of-town developer such as Opus could do the work there because the City had invested all of its money in another project. He said he had intended to vote no until he heard that included in the motion was that Beam Development would pay for the extension. He indicated he would now support the motion. Mr. Clark asked how much the last extension had cost the City of Eugene. Mr. Braud replied that the first extension had cost $30,000 and the second one $25,000. Ms. Ortiz said she wanted to see the City keep the building rather than see it razed. She noted that if the City owned the property it could potentially become the new city hall if Beam Development pulled out. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked how much had already been spent on redevelopment of the Broadway Street area. She averred that they had already risked a lot of money for nothing. She felt they now had the opportunity to spend “a small amount” on something that could be accomplished. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute a motion to direct the Agency Director to offer a proposal to Beam Development that it would provide the agency a $470,000 non-refundable deposit by the May deadline in exchange for the Urban Renewal Agency’s commitment to purchase the property by the July deadline and that the Urban Re- newal Agency would restructure its loan so that the Urban Renewal Agency would commit to it. If Beam Development should not agree to this proposal the Agency Director shall then work with Beam Development and the property owner to extend the timeline for the pur- chase option agreements on the Centre Court Building and adjacent lot and Washburne Building and work toward an assignment of the purchase options to Beam Development and continue to work with Beam Development on elements of acquisition and redevelopment fi- nancing consistent with the amounts and items outlined in the agenda item. If an extension of the option agreement timeline is not approved prior to May 7 then the Agency Director shall inform the property owners. If a satisfactory extension is approved, the Agency Di- rector shall bring back terms to be included in the assignment of the purchase options to Beam Development as soon as practicable. Ms. Solomon indicated that she would not support the motion. She took exception to Ms. Taylor’s comments that money had been spent on “nothing.” She stressed that the people who served on the Broadway Development Advisory Committee had been very committed to the process and to the community and the process had provided a “great result” which would provide input to guide all of the future downtown development. She hoped Ms. Taylor would extend more respect to that process. Mr. Zelenka asked what would happen between May 1 and July 8. Mr. Braud responded that assuming the City extended the option agreements, they expected a decision from ORI by the end of April. He noted that Beam had received commitments from other tenants. He related that the bank had asked that they conduct a market analysis, which was forecast to be completed on May 26. He said at that point the development plan would be complete and they would submit it to potential financing partners. He stated that the other approvals necessary would occur by August 1 and Beam Development indicated willingness to sign a binding agreement by August 15, with the purchase of the property to occur 90 days subsequent to that. Mr. Zelenka asked what would happen between May 8 and July 8 in the original proposal. Mr. Braud replied that the City would work towards closing. He added that there was adequate time to close on the property, assuming that Beam had made the deposit. Mr. Zelenka surmised that Ms. Bettman’s motion would push Beam into a faster timeline than had been proposed. He said in order for Beam Development to agree to the $470,000 deposit they would have to be very sure the project would move forward and they would have to complete the items they requested more time to complete in a shorter timeframe. Mr. Braud responded that the motion provided a certainty that the City would purchase the property. Mr. Zelenka doubted that Beam Development would agree to this, but if they did and still could not complete the transaction he did not want the City to be the owner of the property. Mr. Clark concurred. He opposed the substitute motion, adding that he was “only barely” for the initial motion. He did not feel confidence in the current course of action. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman asserted that her substitute motion was the “only chance” for the development to move ahead. She repeated the points of her motion. She believed it provided the City a level of protection and that it would provide them time to put the transaction together. She opined that a vote against the substitute motion was a vote “to kill the deal” and keep the project in the hands of Connor/Woolley. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that this strategy would eliminate the incentive for Connor/Woolley to negotiate the extension because the City would buy the property anyway. He underscored that the uncertainties in this proposal did not have anything to do with the City, it had to do with the banks and credit agencies. He averred that the substitute motion asked the City to assume or overlook risks. Mr. Pryor concurred, commenting that forcing peoples’ hands killed deals. He did not want to own the property with no one to develop it. He wanted to retain flexibility. He felt the original motion moved the project forward with diligence and prudence, showed good faith, but did not tie anyone’s hands behind their back. He averred that the substitute motion was not supportable because it made things the City did not want to have happen too quickly, happen in a manner that was too fast for the developer. Mr. Clark commented that the only drawbacks in the original motion had to do with the reality of the markets. He was not interested in those costs. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to include a review at the beginning of July to assess whether Beam Development had put the deal together so that the City would have an opportunity to opt out of the purchase of the property. Ms. Bettman declined the friendly amendment. The substitute motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. The main motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2008 Page 8 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 May 12, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling (via telephone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Bettman referred to minutes from the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGR) that indicated staff would use the City’s legislative policy document to take a position on a bill if the IGR Committee had not met. She said in the past when there was not an opportunity for the committee to take a position on a bill, the official position was neutral. She characterized a memorandum from staff as “overly argumentative” and objected to inappropriate references to her prior comments. She acknowledged that the current IGR policy did not specifically address supplemental legislative sessions and recommended amending it to include procedures to be used during truncated sessions. Ms. Taylor expressed her continuing concerns with assessments in the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street areas, which excluded properties on cul de sacs. Mr. Clark said he had attended a meeting to discuss saving Civic Stadium and encouraged the public to participate in the effort. He reported on the Police Commission’s discussion of Police Chief Bob Lehner’s response to the Lane County budget crisis, which would be discussed later in the work session. Mr. Solomon related that some Housing Policy Board (HPB) members were participating on the Planning Commission’s subcommittees on infill compatibility standards and opportunity siting and regularly reporting back to the board. She said the HPB had communicated to the Planning Commission its concerns about the potential impact of proposed policies on the availability of affordable housing. She invited everyone to attend the annual “We Are Bethel” celebration. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for organizing a Communities of Color open house for City Manager Jon Ruiz. She said it was well attended, as was the City’s open house at the Hult Center. She said the Bethel School District celebrated Mexican Mothers’ Day on May 9 and that event was very well attended. She said the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) board met for a budget review and she had requested a condensed version, including the amount contributed by jurisdictions, to share with the Budget Committee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said a hearing on the appeal of the planning director’s decision that the University of Oregon basketball arena did not require a conditional use permit was held on May 7 before the hearings official. He supported the neighborhood’s appeal, but was also working with the University to find ways to mitigate th neighborhood concerns. He said the developer of the housing project at 19 Avenue and Alder Street had been meeting with the neighborhood to resolve problems and had agreed to construct a building more in scale with the neighborhood and provide one parking space per living unit. Mr. Ruiz announced that it was Police Officer Memorial Week and May 15 was National Public Works Day. He said a work session on assessments was scheduled for June 23. He would hold his first community listening forum on May 15 and there would be a work session on Beam development on May 14, with a public hearing scheduled on May 19. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the city manager to work with McKenzie-Willamette Hospital to determine ways in which the City could as- sist in the development of a hospital on a site of McKenzie-Willamette’s choosing. Mr. Clark said he was concerned with comments from McKenzie-Willamette’s spokesperson in a recent newspaper article that indicated the hospital did not feel it had the level of support it needed from the City of Eugene. He said the Riverfront Research Park site was steadily becoming less feasible and he wanted to make a clear and unambiguous statement that the council was directing staff to give strong support to helping McKenzie-Willamette site a hospital in Eugene. He said an important aspect of locating the hospital in Eugene was the impact its property taxes could have on the City’s road maintenance deficit. Mr. Zelenka understood there were numerous discussions in progress about various sites and his concern was that the council would be weighing in at an inappropriate time. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the motion. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka voting yes, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark voting no. The mayor cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Solomon stated she had concerns about the Amazon headwaters issue and the recent resignation of the chair of the acquisition committee provided an opportunity for the council to pause and submit the question to the voters for approval. She felt the acquisition of headwaters properties was becoming an increasingly contentious issue, particularly since the City’s grant application to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) had been declined and the City would need to find an additional $1.9 million to fund the purchase. She said people were concerned because the acquisition had “jumped the queue” ahead of other projects that were in the last two parks bonds and she preferred to let the voters decide if the properties had priority. She was viewing all expenditures at this time through the lens of transportation funding; the voters would be asked to help the City solve its transportation backlog and it was important to establish the council’s credibility. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct staff to prepare for the No- vember 2008 election a ballot measure to determine the voters’ support for the City’s purchase of the Green and Beverly properties. Mr. Clark hoped the motion would not be tabled as the people of Eugene deserved the chance to hear the council’s position on these issues prior to an election. He agreed it was important to work to preserve the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 2 Work Session properties and was participating on the acquisition committee in good faith, although disagreement among committee members had resulted in the chair’s resignation. He felt it was important to determine how citizens felt about the issue. Ms. Bettman stated that when the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) bond was on the ballot it included acquisition of natural resource properties, which generated public support. She said the Amazon headwaters was not an emergent issue and a task force was working on it. She did not want to preempt that process and put the entire burden squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers. She asked for a copy of the OWEG grant application. Mr. Zelenka said the acquisition committee’s report would be presented to the council in June and did not see a need to refer the matter to the ballot at this time. Ms. Taylor stated she would vote against the motion as the bond measure included funds for open space and natural resources. She thought saving natural resources and water quality was far more important than solving temporary problems. Mr. Pryor said it was a challenging issue. He wanted the City to acquire the property, but did not want to condemn it or pay more than it was worth. He said the financing structure was complicated and it would be difficult for the voters to give a definitive answer without clearly understanding the details of a purchase. He preferred to develop a financing proposal first and thought there should be another appraisal of the property because market conditions had changed dramatically. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Solomon for bringing the issue forward. He was hearing from an increasing number of people in the community, including those who had worked on getting the PROS bond passed, that the asking price for the property was too high. He would support the motion. Mr. Clark pointed out that the map and list of identified projects associated with the bond measure did not include the Amazon headwaters properties. He felt it was appropriate to discuss use of bond funds for the acquisition, although that meant they would be taken from another use. Mr. Zelenka commented that the City was still awaiting notification about its Oregon Parks and Recreation Department grant application. He agreed with Mr. Pryor that more information was needed and would not support the motion at this time. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the cost of acquisition would need to be identified if the issue was placed on the ballot. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that would depend on how the item was placed on the ballot; a general advisory vote on whether or not to buy the property would not need to include an amount, but asking the voters for additional revenue for the purchase would require a specific dollar amount. Ms. Bettman said there were still too many outstanding questions to place the matter on the ballot. Ms. Solomon disagreed. She said if the council believed that acquiring the property was a priority for the community, citizens should be able to confirm that so the City could move forward without any hesitation. She said several issues clouded that decision, including inflated property prices and questionable participa- tion on the committee by a member who owned land contiguous to the subject property. She felt that was potentially a conflict of interest and the contentious nature of the committee’s efforts was ultimately a reflection on the council, potentially undermining its credibility. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Solomon that there were concerns with the committee’s activities. He pointed out that the City would likely have to fund a majority of the purchase in the absence of grant funding and with the expected public safety deficiencies in the City and County, it was appropriate to let the voters weigh in on how expenditures were prioritized. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark and Mr. Poling voting in favor. Mr. Poling left the meeting at 6:05 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: City Response to Lane County Budget Crisis Mr. Ruiz stated that the work session had been scheduled in response to $47 million in anticipated cuts in the County’s budget, many of which would directly affect the people of Eugene. He said there were two levels of discussion: the immediate public safety and public health impacts and the long-term human investments. He said the work session would focus on immediate concerns and he hoped that the long-term discussions could focus on public/private partnerships to collaboratively address the full continuum of prevention, intervention and suppression and possible restructuring of how services were provided in the region. He said recommendations for service priorities were provided in the agenda item summary (AIS) in the event the council wished to move forward with funding some of the items to be cut. He introduced Police Chief Bob Lehner and Jim Carlson, Central Services, to discuss public safety issues and recom- mended funding strategies. Chief Lehner said Lane County was facing a public safety catastrophe and he was greatly concerned about the safety and long-term viability of the community. He used the analogy of a child’s game to illustrate how, while some services were regarded as higher priority, all services were interrelated in a public safety system and it was difficult to determine the consequences of cuts on the overall system. He said recommen- dations were based on an analysis to determine which service cuts would have the most immediate and severe impacts on life and safety in the community. He reviewed the following recommendations, which were prioritized in order of life and safety impacts: 1. Buckley House - $326,000 to fill current funding gap, potentially increased by $51,000 if Human Services Commission funds are not available 2. District Attorney – $450,000 contract to fund two prosecutors, support staff and associated equip- ment and supplies to prosecute City non-person felonies 3. County Jail - $650,000 to contract with Lane County to keep 48 jail beds open for the full year, rather than six months 5. Field Law Enforcement - $191,500 in one-time funding and $518,172 in new ongoing funding to fund and equipment four vacant officer positions Chief Lehner discussed the importance of prevention and treatment programs to the public safety system and emphasized that effective treatment did not occur without prosecution of the underlying offenses and jail space to enforce associated supervision. He said specific recommendations were not made regarding those programs because not enough information was available to understand the effect of cuts, not because they were not critical services. He emphasized that if prosecution of offenses did not occur through the district attorney’s office they would need to be prosecuted through municipal court. Mr. Carlson provided an overview of animal control issues. He said the City had not been involved in animal control for three decades; it had a joint program with Lane County and Springfield, although MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Springfield had withdrawn from the agreement several years ago. He said the City focused on prevention and operated a spay and neuter clinic, which would continue to function. He said the future of animal services at the County level was uncertain, but the City could provide the following basic public safety service within the current budget: 4. Animal Control – provide field enforcement and kennel services by contracting with other govern- ment agencies or nonprofits or by providing the services directly with additional City staff or some combination of those by redirecting the current $660,000 General Fund allocation for animal con- trol, plus the approximately $160,000 to $180,000 in dog license revenue Continuing, Mr. Carlson reviewed agenda materials that summarized the City’s funding reserves and offered recommendations for one-time gap funding to meet the County’s budget crisis. He said staff was requesting direction from the council on how to proceed. In response to a question from Ms. Piercy regarding jail beds, Chief Lehner said the County still had contracts with the U.S. Marshal for federal prisoners and with the City for municipal court beds. He said when budget reductions were fully implemented the result would be 28 beds remaining for local prisoners. Ms. Piercy asked if there was any potential for animal services to generate sufficient revenue to be self- supporting. Mr. Carlson said the County had discussed the possibility of doubling the dog license fee, but it was not certain that would double revenues. Ms. Bettman observed that the City could eliminate its own projected deficit with the short-term funding to fill County budget gaps. She said the County was cutting 188 employees, leaving 1,390 employees and without knowing who those employees were and what priorities the County used to make budgeting decisions she questioned choices such as cuts to the district attorney’s office. She said the City had no policy discretion or ability to set budget priorities if it subsidized the County with City revenues. She pointed out that Lane County had $37 million in public works reserves and suggested requesting something in exchange if the City was going to fund law enforcement or prosecution services. She suggested that the County could provide the City with $1.9 million annually for road repair and the City could then assume some of the public safety obligations. She said the City of Springfield had built its own jail and asked for a financial analysis of the feasibility of Eugene assuming operation of the jail. Mr. Pryor was interested in the option of exchanging funds with the County. He said while transportation system funding remained a major concern, he had to consider the additional budget issues that were being raised, including City Hall maintenance costs. He said if a new City Hall was not built the existing structure needed maintenance and that had to be a factor. He said public safety, human services, City Hall mainte- nance and transportation funding became competing interests. He was reluctant to consider one-time funding for services that required ongoing funding, such as using the Facility Reserve for police, but was willing to consider options for addressing the County’s budget crisis. Mr. Clark said he was interested in discussing the possibility of operating the jail as it would require innovative thinking to address public safety responsibilities. He was troubled by discussions of subsidizing the County or solving its problems; the problems belonged to everyone and the County’s problems were the City’s problems. He said public safety was the City’s most basic mission and highest priority and it would be irresponsible not to step up and bridge the gap. He appreciated the city manager’s recommendations and balanced approach, but hoped for a more comprehensive discussion of public safety in the future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Ruiz clarified with Mr. Pryor that his reference to filling the human services gap related to Eugene and not County-wide. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s suggestion for an exchange of funds to provide the City money for road repairs. She stated it was difficult to discuss making up for the County’s budget deficits when the council had no knowledge of how the County made its budget decisions. Ms. Ortiz supported funding for law enforcement and stressed the importance of dealing with drug addiction, which was the source of many crimes, through treatment and rehabilitation programs, not just enforcement. She said programs that helped people become responsible members of society were an essential part of the public safety system. Mr. Zelenka expressed dismay that the County’s budget crisis had gotten to the point of dismantling the public safety system. He noted that there were many items not included on the list of services to be restored, such as services to veterans, high risk pregnant women, infants and children and mental health services, parole and probation, alcohol and drug treatment, alternative corrections programs and many others. He hoped the public appreciated that it was a crisis situation. He was concerned with using City reserves to provide one-time temporary funding. He was intrigued by the ideas of a County levy to fund human services and the City assuming responsibility for the jail. He asked how the City could provide animal control services within the existing budget. Mr. Carlson explained that the City would probably concentrate on the regulatory and dangerous dog aspects and work with community partners on adoption activities. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Pryor that if a new City Hall was not built the Facility Reserve should be used to make the current building safe and secure. Chief Lehner explained that the County was forced to make substantial cuts to public safety because a majority of its General Fund was allocated to public safety and a substantial cut to the General Fund had a disproportionate affect on public safety services. He agreed with the need for a discussion of long-term solutions, but reminded the council that such a conversation would take some time and on July 1 there would be a genuine crisis if there was no short-term remedy. He viewed one-time funding as a bridge to get to a long-term solution, not merely a bandage on the problem. He said on July 1 the County’s problem would be Eugene’s problem. Regarding the Springfield jail, Chief Lehner said it was designed to be a low-risk facility that lodged low- level misdemeanants who did not have medical or mental health issues, were not mentally unstable or violent or presently addicted. He said such a facility would not address the problems facing Eugene and he was not certain that the City could operate the jail more efficiently or effectively than the County. He agreed with the need for treatment programs, but enforcement and prosecution were necessary to get people into those programs. He said based on the interest expressed by the community, animal control represented a remarkable opportunity for a private/public partnership. Ms. Piercy commented that the City could not tell other jurisdictions how to determine their financial priorities, but the current situation provided an opportunity to collaborate on how to provide services. She liked the concept of providing bridge funding while long-terms solutions were sought with State and regional partners. Ms. Bettman said it was important to address issues of cross-subsidy, equity and priorities and any proposal that the city manager presented to the Budget Committee should be factored into projections for the General Fund deficit. She thought it was irresponsible to take tax money or rates paid by Eugene residents to MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 6 Work Session provide service to people who chose to live elsewhere. She said the County provided services far and wide and she would be looking for equity that any funding the City provided was constrained to serve City residents. She did not object to funding positions in the district attorney’s office unless all other existing resources were preserved for the rest of the County. She said similarly the City should pay for the cases it referred to Buckley House and not cross-subsidize other areas. She asserted that the Facility Reserve consisted of funds that were taken away from maintaining and updating the City Hall and if a new City Hall was not built a considerable reinvestment would need to be made in the current building. Mr. Pryor said he could support one-time funding if it was a bridge to long-term solutions that were sustainable. He said if funds were taken from the Facility Reserve, some portion had to be used to assure the current City Hall was functional. He said it was essential to be financially prudent with existing resources and accurately assess costs in order to make funds stretch as far as possible. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor about bridge funding leading to long-term sustainability and Ms. Bettman’s point about equitably serving the people of Eugene. He cautioned against having those discussions in an accusatory manner and hoped jurisdictions could collaborate effectively to solve problems that affected them all. He did not see assistance coming from the State or federal levels; solutions would need to be found regionally and required establishing priorities. He said in view of the budget crisis it seemed inappropriate to spend almost $8 million to acquire Amazon headwaters properties without a communitywide conversation. He hoped the council would accept the chief’s recommendations and move them to the Budget Committee for discussion. Mr. Zelenka asked if costs associated with rehabilitating the current City Hall had been estimated. Mr. Carlson said estimates had been developed and would be presented at a work session in late May or early June. Mr. Zelenka said it was important not to suggest that the County’s budget crisis had been resolved by a Eugene bailout because there were still dramatic cuts that would be made. He asked if the city manager concurred with the chief’s recommendations. Mr. Ruiz said the recommendations were his and had been developed by a team. Chief Lehner clarified that the funding recommendations for Buckley House, the district attorney’s office, the jail and field law enforcement were not saving the County; they represented a set of very limited and specific contracts to avoid a public safety crisis and its impacts on the City of Eugene. He said the County clearly understood the funding was a City backstop for Eugene residents. Ms. Piercy pointed out examples of existing collaboration among jurisdictions, such as fire departments, which maximized available resources and established the foundation for further collaboration. Ms. Bettman said any funds remaining in the Facility Reserve after the current City Hall was upgraded should be used to add patrol officers on an ongoing basis. She said despite loss of revenue, the County’s budget was $455 million and the City was considering using $2.5 million of its General Funds, when it was facing a deficit, to bolster services that the County should be providing while at the same time the County was foregoing revenue from development projects throughout the County. She said the council and the voters did not have any impact on those policy decisions and that was a problem that should be rectified immediately. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Ruiz said he understood from the council’s discussion that it was supportive of the recommendations in the AIS as long as they were viewed as a bridge to long-term MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 7 Work Session solutions. He liked the concept of exchanging dollars with the County and would research how that could be achieved. Chief Lehner stressed that the County had not requested any funding; he initiated conversations with County officials to ascertain the impact on Eugene citizens when he saw the magnitude of the proposed cuts. Mr. Clark objected to the continuing discussion of whether the council should have input on how the County operated. He said he had requested the work session because the council was elected to fix problems, not blame, and should be working on solutions for the people of Eugene. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to bring to the Budget Committee recommendations that reflected the policy discussions made by the council. Ms. Bettman asserted that the council did not make policy decisions, but had policy discussions about equity and providing services to the citizens of Eugene, assuring that the funds were circumscribed and whatever proportional share the City was receiving in the existing budget was not shifted to whatever contractual agreements were made. Mr. Ruiz pointed out that the funding recommendations in the AIS were not intended to be used for County services or to supplant existing County resources. Ms. Bettman agreed that was not the intent of the proposal but it was not explicit in the recommendations how the County would use funds left in its budget once the City provided funding. She used the example of funding two prosecutors and questioned whether the City would still receive the same service from the existing District Attorney staff. Mr. Ruiz said he was in full agreement with the concept of equity. Mr. Carlson clarified that the District Attorney was planning to spend zero dollars on prosecuting property crimes; Eugene’s share of that was zero. He said the City was proposing to contract with the District Attorney to prosecute property crimes that occurred in Eugene; those services would be specific to Eugene and would not supplant funds the County was otherwise spending in unincorporated areas. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add as a funding recommendation Eugene’s portion of the $380,000 reduction to the Human Services Commission, which would be bridge funding dedicated to Eugene citizens, with the amount to be determined. Mr. Carlson noted that the City had already provided $140,000 to the Human Services Commission during the current fiscal year and those funds had not been used. He said the County planned to use the funds for human services countywide and the $380,000 represented a portion of services that were currently provided to the unincorporated area. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Clark declined to accept the friendly amendment because of the lack of infor- mation about other budgetary issues. Chief Lehner said he understood Mr. Zelenka’s amendment was specific to the HSC funding, but not to a particular program, and the same equity principles attached to the other recommendations would apply. Mr. Clark accepted the friendly amendment if the equity rules applied to all of the recommendations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz distributed an information sheet on HSC funding and the history of jurisdictional support. Mr. Clark objected to discussions of cross-jurisdictional responsibilities on one side of the equation, but not the other. He agreed with Ms. Piercy’s remarks that it was all part of a larger system and issues had to be addressed in a balanced and equitable way. Ms. Bettman said the council needed to do the best it could for the people it represented within the system and the City had consistently donated more from its General Fund than either Lane County or Springfield. Mr. Ruiz reiterated his assurance that equity principles would apply. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 12, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. 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 procedures for providing comments. th Dan Weiner , East 16 Avenue, Eugene, spoke to the council about affordable housing. He expressed concerns about the impact of actions by a Texas corporation and asked the council to demonstrate its displeasure at the elimination of affordable housing and meet with a representative of the corporation before construction activities commenced in mid-June. He pointed out that the corporation was going against clearly stated council policies while “skimming the cream” and renting to affluent students. He hoped the mayor would attempt to recruit allies for the endeavor from University of Oregon faculty and administration. Doug DuPriest , High Street, Eugene, representing California-Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. (COBI), which owns and operates two television stations on its Chad Drive property, alerted the council to the potentially adverse impacts on COBI’s property of the proposed water quality ordinance. He distributed information packets. He said COBI’s satellite farm was on the south side of its property and a portion would be captured in the water quality overlay, possibly restricting COBI’s ability to upgrade the dishes to accommodate high definition signals. He used aerial photographs to illustrate the affected property and asked the council to exempt the property from the overlay because of the important telecommunications functions involved. Joe Collins , Hawkins Lane, Eugene, commented that the council and mayor were on a spending spree with projects such as redevelopment of downtown, acquisition of Amazon headwaters property, construction of a new City Hall and police station and expansion of the trail system. He said there were people in the community who needed mental health care and medical care and could not obtain it and street conditions were getting worse; nothing was being done to address those and other problems. He felt Eugene had the worst leadership in America and the mayor and council were an elitist group. He hoped no one would be reelected. Misha Seymour , Lincoln Street, Eugene, spoke about the disparity between conditions in downtown and along Coburg Road. He was concerned with the treatment of poor people in public areas such as outside the library. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing He felt their right to freedom of assembly had been abridged. He said City staff watered and nurtured flowers and landscaping, but not people. Deb Frisch , Eugene, referred to the council’s work session to discuss the City’s response to the Lane County budget crisis and displayed a document from the County’s budget that she said identified funding recommenda- tions for 48 different services. She pointed out that three programs were recommended for funding above the minimum: prosecution of adult defendants, the jail and prosecution of juvenile defendants. She said if the City contracted with the County to prosecute property crimes in Eugene that was an invitation to criminals to harass those who lived in Springfield and the County. She said the council had still not met on the subject of the University of Oregon’s proposed basketball arena. Mayor Piercy determined there was no one else wishing to speak and closed the public forum. She called for comments from the council. Councilor Bettman asked for a copy of the Lane County Budget document. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the February 19, 2008, Public Hearing; February 27, 2008, Work Session; April 9, 2008, Work Session and May 5, 2008, Executive Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution 4941 for Concrete Alley Paving, and Constructing Wastewater and th Stormwater Systems on 6 Alley between Taylor Street and Polk Street (Job #4527) D. Approval of Neighborhood Matching Grants Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Ms. Bettman noted that she had submitted electronic minutes corrections and pulled Item C from the Consent Calendar. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman stated she was not opposed to the local improvement district; her concern was with the assessment policies and assuring that all legally assessable costs were assessed. Her motion would increase the assessment by $14,016 of stormwater improvements. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend Section 5 of Reso- lution No. 4941 to change $109,620 to $123,636. Councilor Bettman said her intent was to correct shifting part of the assessment cost to the City. She said the properties were mostly commercial and would benefit from the improvement and therefore all of the costs that were legally assessable to the impacted and benefitting properties should be allocated to those properties. Councilor Taylor asked why one property had been exempted from the assessment. City Engineer Mark Schoening explained that the property was not included because it did not front the alley. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing Councilor Taylor said there had been other cases when properties had to pay. Mr. Schoening said there were no instances that involved transportation improvements. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the code differentiated among alley, street and other types of assessments; the code was specific that for alley assessments the property had to abut the alley in order to be assessed and the subject property did not. He said in his legal opinion the council lacked the authority within the existing code to assess that one property for alley improvements. In response to Councilor Taylor’s request for further clarification, Mr. Klein said the council could adopt the resolution, including Councilor Bettman’s amendment, but could not expand the local improvement district to include the one property that did not abut the alley. Councilor Zelenka asked for a description of the planned improvements. Mr. Schoening said the improvements would include paving a graveled alley and reconstructing the sanitary wastewater line. He said the exempt property likely had access to the wastewater line through an easement on an adjacent property. Councilor Zelenka felt the code should be changed to provide for a more equitable assessment policy. He asked what the affect of the resolution amendment would be. Mr. Schoening said the affect was to reduce the City’s share of costs and increase the assessment to other properties by that amount, which was approximately 13 percent. Councilor Ortiz asked if passing the motion to amend would place a greater burden on the properties included in the improvement district. Mr. Schoening said it would. Councilor Bettman noted that the costs only related to the stormwater improvement and reiterated her concern that properties benefitting from an improvement should be assessed all of the costs and no costs should be shifted to City ratepayers. Councilor Clark said he was looking forward to a larger conversation about assessments. He said that would highlight the impact of greater density in the City’s core on aging infrastructure, the need to make improvements to accommodate that density and who should pay the costs of those improvements. The motion to amend the resolution failed, 4:3; Councilor Bettman, Council Taylor and Councilor Zelenka voting in favor. The Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official were ap- proved and Resolution 4941 for Concrete Alley Paving, and Constructing Wastewater th and Stormwater Systems on 6 Alley between Taylor Street and Polk Street (Job #4527) was adopted, 5:2; Councilor Bettman and Council Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 12, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 14, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. City Manager Jon Ruiz distributed a news release from Arlie and Company regarding potential sites for the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. He said staff was still pursuing the council’s direction to site a hospital south of the river. A. WORK SESSION: Water Quality Protected Waterways Therese Walch, Public Works, said the intent of the proposal was to protect, rather than enhance, water quality by filling gaps in a system of waterways identified as important to water quality. She said policy and regulatory drivers for the proposal were the Metro Plan, the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSWMP) and the Clean Water Act and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). She illustrated on a map Eugene’s position in the watershed and the waterways that DEQ had determined were not meeting water quality standards. She said Eugene was subject to a total maximum daily load (TMDL) and pollutant load reduction. Ms. Walch said the identification of waterways to protect was based on a watershed approach, beginning with the waterways identified by DEQ and adding waterways that directly drained into them and headwater streams because of their particularly sensitivity. She said those waterways were then compared to waterways that were already protected and protection gaps were identified; the proposed overlay zone would fill those gaps. She illustrated the overlay zone on a map and pointed out that the concrete-lined channel of Amazon Creek was not included because it did not meet the fundamental criteria of having a water quality function, meaning an earthen bottom and vegetative slide slopes. She said the proposal included two sets of tax lots outside City limits but inside the urban growth boundary (UGB); protection would apply upon annexation to the City. Ms. Walch explained that the basic elements of the proposal included a water quality management area comprised of the waterway channel plus a 25-foot setback from the top of the bank on either side for non- headwater streams and a 40-foot setback measured from the center of the channel for headwater streams. She said the widths were consistent with Goal 5 setbacks. She said the intent was to prevent future additional encroachment into the protected area, and to protect existing vegetation and minimize piping and other disturbance. She said Planning Commission members who voted in opposition to the proposal MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 1 Work Session questioned its overall benefit and wanted to expand catch basin cleaning and restoration projects to achieve the same results. She said staff believed the proposal was an important element of the stormwater program that could not be addressed through other means. She said the Planning Commission voted four to three to recommend approval of the water quality code amendments and directed the council’s attention to a copy of the commission’s minutes included in the agenda packet. Mr. Clark confirmed that it was primarily TMDL in the Willamette River that was being addressed by the proposal. He asked why the proposed strategy was determined to be the best choice if there was a menu of strategies for addressing TMDL. Ms. Walch replied that the City had submitted a TMDL implementation plan to DEQ in April 2008, but had not heard yet whether than plan would be approved. She said the plan relied heavily on existing activities that already addressed water quality, including the current proposal to fill gaps in the current program. Mr. Clark said he was interested in determining why staff felt the proposal was the best approach among a number of available strategies. Ms. Walch said if the subject waterways were not protected staff was concerned that activities and uses would cause further water quality degradation. Mr. Clark asked if the adjacent lands would be excluded from a buildable lands inventory. Tim Bingham, Lane County of Governments (LCOG), said evaluation of the proposal’s impact on buildable lands followed the methodology used in the metropolitan planning process and was included in the findings. He said there were reductions, but noted that a significant portion of the impact—slightly less than 50 percent—was on public right-of-way; some of the parcels that remained were public and some were private. He said based on the maximum impact to those parcels there was still a remaining surplus supply of buildable lands. Mr. Clark commented that a recent analysis of homelessness in the community determined there were approximately 2,000 people who were homeless each night. He said the challenge was to measure the human impact on water quality and TMDL of camping activities on the river bank. Ms. Taylor said the map appeared to indicate the Amazon headwaters were already protected. Ms. Walch replied most of the headwaters were protected by Goal 5 and the ones that were not were included in the proposal. Ms. Taylor asked if the City would be penalized if it did not improve water quality. DEQ representative Jared Rubin said the Willamette River had a number of water quality concerns and was not meeting standards for things like bacteria, temperature and some metals, but that was not just a City of Eugene issue and the State was working with a number of entities to implement programs to address water quality. He said there were many contributing uses upstream and it would be difficult to penalize Eugene for not meeting standards. He said the objective was to have TMDL limitation plans in place and Eugene had complied with that requirement. Ms. Taylor noted that Amazon Creek was within the City and had been out of compliance for several years. Mr. Rubin agreed that responsibility for Amazon Creek fell within the UGB and DEQ would like to see a plan and implementation activities. He said the proposal would protect existing resources. Ms. Taylor asked if there had been any consideration of removing the concrete lining from the Amazon channel. Ms. Walch said it had been a discussion point in the metro waterways study, but it was deemed to be so constrained and expensive that it was not included on the project list. She said there was a potential project to create a low flow channel in the concrete lined section to concentrate flow during dry parts of the year and mitigate temperature problems. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor observed that the setbacks were not as wide as previously suggested and asked why they had been reduced from the 75-foot width originally proposed. Ms. Walch responded that the revision was made after much input from the public in order to create an implementable approach. She said the proposed setbacks were consistent with Goal 5 setbacks and were within the scientific spectrum for water quality setbacks. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor asked if other water quality strategies were being considered. Ms. Walch said a shading plan was being developed and there were regulatory restrictions on removal of vegetation. Ms. Bettman asked how many of the 75 miles of waterways not included in the proposal already had protections. Ms. Walch said all were protected with the exception of three or four miles within the West Eugene wetlands plan boundary. She said those sections did not have wetland buffer or setback protections but it was felt that the policies within the wetlands conservation plan area would prevail. Ms. Bettman remarked that the 40-foot setback for headwaters meant the wider the waterway, the less the setback. Ms. Walch agreed, but pointed out that the typical width of headwaters streams was seven feet. Mr. Bettman commented that 90 miles of waterways had been reduced to 15 miles and the ordinance allowed development and spraying of pesticides, herbicides and toxic fertilizers. She said it was unclear how much of the 15 miles would actually be protected and asserted the proposal was doing nothing to protect waterways. She said the funds used for planning projects and staffing the regulation and enforce- ment activities could be better used to purchase conservation easements on those waterways. She characterized the ordinance as “lip service” while the community’s most important resource essential to life was not drinkable or swimmable. Mr. Pryor thanked staff for an excellent job of trying to balance many needs and interests. He felt the proposal took a citywide approach by establishing major protections in the northern side of town and identifying and filling in gaps in the southern part. He appreciated the fact that the proposal did not look at one particular area for one particular interest. He said protecting water quality was essential and staff had made efforts to arrive at the best solution. He acknowledged that there was more that could still be done, but the proposal was a good first step and not “lip service.” Mr. Clark also appreciated the work that had gone into the proposal, but his challenge was the significant impact it had on a small number of people to address a value that was shared by everyone. He agreed that purchasing conservation easements was a good idea. He was also concerned about the campsites and other illegal activities along the river bank that were contributing to water quality problems. He asked how the City was mitigating that direct human impact on the river. Ms. Walch said she would obtain that informa- tion from Parks and Open Space staff as she knew there were programs to address that. Mr. Clark also expressed concern about the methodology for determining top of bank and procedures for resolving disputes. Ms. Taylor stated it was inexcusable not to do everything possible to protect water quality. She was most immediately concerned with taking action within two or three weeks after the public hearing as there were many people in the community who would be concerned about the proposal. She preferred to hold another work session to consider their input before taking action. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she did not mean to cast aspersions on staff because they had worked hard to create a proposal that had the absolute least impact on the development community. She said it was not staff’s fault that the conventional posture of the organization was to facilitate development at all costs and at the same time put something on the table to convince DEQ that the City was making an effort, regardless of how ineffective, at protecting waterways. She asked what would happen if the ordinance did not pass. Ms. Walch said it was included in the TMDL plan as consideration of adopting an ordinance because the council had not yet taken action. She said if the ordinance did not pass the City would need to work with DEQ to find other ways to reduce the TDML as the proposal was considered an important part of the plan. Ms. Bettman said the City’s metropolitan wastewater facility had a stake in the outcome because it discharged into the Willamette River and was contributing to increasing the temperature. She said the City had lobbied the State to change those regulations so it could continue to dump into the river. She said it was necessary to change habits and clean up the waterways. Mr. Clark found Ms. Bettman’s comments about the motivations of the development community unfortu- nate. He said the purpose of government, as expressed in the Constitution, was to protect people’s rights. His concern was not about the development community; it was about private property when it was included in the overlay zone and how that affected owners’ right to use their property. He said it would also have an impact on businesses throughout the community. He wanted to put the right protections in place, but protect people’s rights appropriately in the process. Ms. Piercy believed that the proposal represented important steps toward compliance. She said the City should do as much as possible as quickly as it could to assure waterways were clean and ecosystems functioned. She thanked staff for its work to date. B. WORK SESSION: Beam Development Briefing Mr. Ruiz said the purpose of the briefing was to follow up on the council’s earlier executive session and move the discussion into a public setting, followed by a public hearing and council action. Mike Sullivan, Planning and Development Department, used a slide presentation to provide an overview of key features of the purchase and sale agreement (PSA). He said price reductions on both the Centre Court and Washburne buildings had been successfully negotiated; the Centre Court building was reduced from $2.8 million to $2.4 million dollars and the Washburne building was reduced from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. He said the total purchase price for both buildings was now $3.6 million, representing a reduction of $1.1 million. He said Beam had agreed to several important financial commitments, including: ? providing $50,000 in additional cash deposits as part of option negotiations with the seller, ? assuming responsibility for the City’s current deposit of $470,000, and ? agreeing to sign the PSA on May 22, which would commit Beam to purchase of the buildings by July 8 for a total of $3.6 million. Mr. Sullivan said Beam had also confirmed commitments to redevelop the Centre Court building in an historically consistent manner and redevelop approximately 120,000 square feet, split between the Centre Court building and newly constructed building on the adjacent development site. He said construction would be consistent with LEED certification and completed according to milestones included in the PSA. He said a certain amount of preleased space was necessary to qualify the project for financing and while the first MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 4 Work Session priority was to fill the building with private tenants, the City was discussing a contingent or standby commitment to lease some space in one of the Beam buildings. Mr. Sullivan illustrated the range of lease rates currently paid by the City in the downtown area, adjusted to 2010 dollars because the Beam rate of $1.83 per square foot was guaranteed to 2010. He said disposition of vacated space owned by the City could present a revenue opportunity by leasing it to private tenants. He explained the financing structure using Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and urban renewal funds, which would be loaned to Beam for a ten-year term at rates consistent with the City’s borrowing rate from HUD and the downtown loan fund. He said the total proposed project financing was $38.4 million, of which 75 percent would come from private and conventional financing sources; the City and urban renewal agency (URA) were projected to contribute $9.7 million, or 25 percent of the total financing required. Mr. Sullivan explained the reversionary clauses under which the property could be returned to the City. He said the clauses specified two ways in which that could occur: the City preserved the right to buy back the property if Beam did not meet project or timeline terms in the PSA or, if the City was unable to deliver the construction loan, Beam could require the URA to repurchase the buildings. He concluded with a review of the next steps in the process. Ms. Taylor expressed concern with moving out of property the City owned. She preferred to see rental property vacated if the City eventually occupied space in the Beam project. Mr. Clark asked if the square foot costs used in the comparison of rents were net or gross rates. Mr. Sullivan said he believed they were fully loaded rates, although the City had a broad range of lease agreements and he would need to review the specifics of each individual agreement. Mr. Clark said before making a decision he would need to know the actual cost difference between what the City would pay for rent in the Beam project and what it was currently paying for space downtown. Mr. Ruiz said staff would develop the most accurate information possible for the council’s consideration. He said the goal was to determine the best financial arrangement for the City that met the objective of good financial stewardship. He said there were some elements that would be difficult to factor in, such as potential efficiencies realized through consolidation of some facilities that were currently leased. Mr. Clark said the public value would come from revitalization of downtown and he wanted to understand the actual annual cost of that goal and determine if it was a good comparative value. Mr. Pryor recognized that this type of project was complex and could become more convoluted as it progressed. He agreed that if the City moved into the Beam project it would be preferable to vacate rented space first. He was pleased that the City’s loan to Beam would require repayment like a conventional financing arrangement. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for an innovative approach to the project that worked within the constraints of existing resources. She hoped there would be periodic reports to the council on how efficiencies were realized if the City occupied the new space. She asked for clarification on the reversionary clauses. Mr. Sullivan said the clauses gave the City the right to buy the property back, but did not require that. He said the City could compel Beam to sell the property if it did not meet the PSA requirements and the City chose not to buy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked if the City would have to commit additional dollars if the project costs exceeded the projected $38.4 million. Mr. Sullivan replied that the City was clear that its participation would be confined to the total of the HUD funds and a small amount of urban renewal funds if the City became a tenant. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Ruiz explained that the City was not required to repay the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) funds because they were a grant and not a loan. He said the City was loaning those funds to Beam and would be repaid when Beam reached its target return on investment. Mr. Sullivan added that the repaid BEDI grant funds would be considered Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program income. Ms. Solomon asked if funds would remain to assist other development efforts once the Beam project financing was finalized. Mr. Sullivan said $2 million remained in the urban renewal downtown loan fund and $1.2 million remained under the urban renewal district spending cap. Mr. Ruiz said the City had attempted to minimize the contribution of redevelopment agency money in order to maximize funds available for other projects. Ms. Solomon asked if the City’s commitment to be a backstop tenant relieved Beam of its obligation to find a private tenant and placed that burden on the City. Mr. Sullivan said Beam was aggressively seeking private tenants and already had at least one commitment. He said the PSA required specific efforts by Beam to seek those private tenants and required documentation of the efforts. Ms. Bettman remarked that if the Beam project was successful it would increase the value of all property downtown. She said current rents paid by the City for downtown space were low because overall property values had been depressed by the buildings that Beam would be redeveloping. She was pleased to see the close scrutiny of the PSA and efforts to maximize the availability of resources for other projects. She asked if Beam was in agreement with the PSA provisions. Mr. Sullivan said some language details were still being finalized but Beam was in agreement with the major financial components. He said groundbreaking was currently scheduled for the spring of 2009 with a 12-month construction period. Ms. Piercy congratulated staff for doing a good job of developing a fiscally sound project and looked forward to the revitalization of downtown. Mr. Clark said he was looking forward to a revitalized downtown and his level of scrutiny related to ensuring success of the Beam project in order to pave the way for future redevelopment efforts. He said it appeared that the City could expect to pay 30 percent more in rent than it was currently paying if it became Beam’s tenant. Mr. Sullivan said the Beam rate was a fully loaded rate and he would review the current lease agreements to provide more accurate figures. Mr. Ruiz said it was possible the difference could be less. Mr. Clark expressed concern about the City’s obligation under the reversionary clauses. Mr. Sullivan said the provisions had been negotiated specifically to give the council and the urban renewal agency an opportunity to weigh in on disposition of the building and perhaps reacquire the site for a public purpose if Beam was unable to move forward with the project. He did not anticipate that the City would encounter any difficulty in delivering the second loan. Mr. Clark asked if there was concern that the rent rate quoted by Beam would increase if the project expenses increased and Beam was forced to seek additional financing. Mr. Sullivan said that issue had not been addressed but it was possible that any additional financing Beam might need to obtain could be at a higher rate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 6 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 19, 2008 8 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning the Planning Commission; and Amending Sections 2.013, 2.330, 2.332, 2.335, 2.345, 2.350, and 2.355 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. There being no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing and called for comments from the council. Councilor Bettman indicated she did not object to removing ex officio members of the Planning Commis- sion. She asked if there had been any consideration of adding two additional citizen voting members to the commission. Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department, replied that the commission had not discussed larger policy issues such as adding members. Councilor Bettman asked for language to add two citizen members to the Planning Commission and a work session to discuss that issue. She noted that the ordinance also removed the commission’s charge to review the capital improvement program (CIP) and said that was an important task consistent with the commis- sion’s other duties and should remain a Planning Commission responsibility. She said the agenda item summary (AIS) indicated the commission secretary was the planning director, but it did not explicitly state that in the ordinance. Mr. Nystrom said the bylaws were more explicit than the code. He said in practice someone had to be responsible for maintaining the commission’s records and it made sense for a staff member to perform that function; the language change would allow the secretary to be designated, rather than elected. Councilor Bettman requested that the language be revised to be explicit that the secretary was the planning director or designee. Councilor Zelenka concurred with Councilor Bettman’s request for language to add two citizen members to the Planning Commission. He asked why review of the CIP had been eliminated as a commission responsibility. Mr. Nystrom said the commission had discussed the very limited scope of its review because the CIP came to it as a financial document, rather than one related to land use issues. He said CIP projects were identified and prioritized by the council and that was outside the commission’s purview, as were financial issues. The commission felt its role with respect to the CIP was awkward. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Councilor Zelenka preferred to continue the commission’s review of the CIP as he felt that was valuable input. He suggested that language could be revised to more clearly define the Planning Commission’s role and responsibilities for CIP review. Councilor Bettman clarified that she was requesting two voting citizen members to replace the two nonvoting ex officio members who were being removed from the commission; not an expansion of the total number of commissioners. She agreed with Councilor’s Zelenka’s remarks regarding the commission’s CIP review. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adding Sections 9.4770 Through 9.4790 to the Eugene Code, 1971 that Establish a Water Quality Overlay Zone; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1040, 9.7055, 9.7205, 9.7305, 9.7820, 9.8005, 9.8025, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8415, 9.8470, 9.8472, 9.8474, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9.8855, and 9.8865 of that Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 20194 and Sections 6.650, 6.655, 6.660, 6.665, and 6.670 of that Code; Adopt- ing the Water Quality Waterways Map; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Jason Martin , Ohio Street, Eugene, thanked Councilor Solomon for her assistance. He expressed concern with the impact of the 25-foot setback requirement on his property. He questioned whether that requirement would be triggered by any repairs to an existing fence. Gene Addington , Ruby Avenue, Eugene, stated he was also concerned with the 25-foot requirement and was not certain how that was measured. He currently maintained the portion of his property that would be affected by the requirement and questioned who would have the responsibility under the new ordinance. Doug DuPriest , High Street, Eugene, representing California-Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. (COBI), used photographs that illustrated his concern about the ordinance’s impact on COBI’s satellite dish installation site. He identified a number of problems with the proposed ordinance, including the need for private property owners to hire consultants to determine the setback line. He said if the council adopted the water overlay ordinance, COBI was asking for an amendment that would exempt its Chad Drive property and exclude it from the overlay as a quasi-public telecommunications provider with unique engineering needs and federal regulatory requirements. Alternatively, he asked that the physical footprint be defined as being at least 12 feet wide or the width of the dish, if wider. He noted that COBI was the only telecommunications provider affected by the ordinance and an exemption would be fair. He said the larger dishes were a required upgrade to accommodate high definition signals. Mayor Piercy determined there was no one else wishing to speak and closed the public hearing. She called for comments from the council. Councilor Solomon thanked those who testified. She asked staff to follow up with Mr. Martin and Mr. Addington on the questions they posed during testimony. Therese Walch, Public Works Department, replied that she would follow up on the questions. She said the ordinance would not change who was responsible for managing the property and owners would be able to provide maintenance of vegetation, including existing landscaping. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing Councilor Solomon noted that the Martin property backed up on a ditch that stretched the entire length of a street, but only a few properties were subject to the requirement. Ms. Walch replied that based on topographic data showing the contour of the land there was no defined channel in other areas, which was why protection was not proposed. She indicated the data might need updating. Councilor Clark said there were still a number of questions regarding the ordinance’s impact and suggested an additional work session to address those issues. He asked if the setback boundaries that were mapped would become permanent with adoption of the ordinance or if there was a process to determine the specific boundaries. Ms. Walch said the ordinance, once adopted, would include the map as an exhibit; adoption would create a line on the map that would become the outward limit of the water quality management area. She said the adopted map would include a measurement tool. She felt that data on which the proposal was based was sound. Councilor Clark asked if property owners had received notification of the proposed ordinance other than that for the council’s work session and public hearing. Ms. Walch said outreach to all affected property owners began in June 2006 with the initial proposal; owners were also notified of all related Planning Commission meetings on the ordinance. She said another council work session was scheduled for June 18, 2008. In response to questions from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Walch said the water quality management area might encompass an existing home or structure, but those were excluded from the regulated area and the City was not requiring that they be removed. Regarding the concerns from COBI, she explained that the existing footprint of a satellite dish foundation would be excluded from the regulated area, but COBI wanted the projected area of a dish to be excluded in anticipation of possibly needing to enlarge the foundation during conversion to high definition. Councilor Bettman preferred to tie an exclusion to a use. She pointed out the ordinance included many caveats and exemptions and asked if the outcome could be quantified in terms of benchmarks and standards. She wanted to see that information at the work session. Councilor Clark asked how the ordinance would affect additions to a home or outbuildings located in the regulated area. Ms. Walch stated that there were provisions that enabled erecting a new accessory structure of less than 120 square feet, but additions to a home would not be permitted. She said a list of affected homes was included as an exhibit to the ordinance. In response to a comment from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Walch acknowledged that the ordinance needed some clarification regarding its impact on existing fences. Councilor Zelenka asked for language addressing the problem of larger satellite dish footprints to accommo- date high definition transmission. He commented that the point of the ordinance was better water quality and it was more efficient to improve water quality through enhanced regulation than building treatment plants. City Attorney Emily Jerome said that motions addressing COBI’s request had been prepared at Councilor Poling’s request and would be made available to the council. Councilor Ortiz pointed out that the ordinance represented the City’s response to federal requirements for protecting and improving water quality. Councilor Taylor asked for information about the basis on which 90 miles of waterways were excluded. She also asked whether a property owner could build any type of structure or continue to extend their house if MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing there was already a structure within the regulated area. Ms. Walch said she would provide a written response prior to the next work session. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Extra-Territorial Water and Sewer Extensions Procedures; and Amending Sections 9.7055, 9.7205, 9.7820, and 9.8121 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the council. There were no questions or comments from the council. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Public Contracting Provisions; Repealing Section 2.150 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Sections 2.1420 and 2.1430 of that Code; and Adding a New Section 2.1447 to that Code. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the council. Councilor Bettman observed that the ordinance gave the purchasing agent a lot of latitude to declare an emergency and establish special circumstances that would allow expenditures without any competition or public bidding. She preferred language that specified the City Manager or designee instead of the purchasing agent. She objected to removal of 2.1430(7)(b) relating to notification of the council and asked to have the language restored. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Repealing Section 5 of Ordinance No. 20239. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. Jim Straub , Owl Road, Eugene, acting president of the Rental Owners Association of Lane County (ROA), said the association currently represented over 960 members covering over 6,500 area rental units. He said the association had a deep commitment to promoting fair housing and landlord/tenant regulations and aggressively educated its members about all laws related to rental housing. He stated that the ROA had been on the interested parties list for housing code issues for the past four years, but had not received any notification about the council work session or request to staff to draft language for expansion of the current code. That information became available through a chance encounter with a council member last week. He said landlords, as the sole funding source for the housing program, had earned the right to have a voice in changes to the regulations and asked the council to delay its vote on the ordinance to allow the ROA to provide input. Heather Hannah , Avalon Street, Eugene, ROA board member, addressed concerns with incorporating the issue of mold into the housing code. She said it would open a Pandora’s Box by requiring standards, limits, identification procedures and testing parameters. She said mold was everywhere and not all mold was harmful; expanding the code to include it could force expensive processes on property owners when it might not be a health hazard. She strongly urged the council to reconsider including mold. She said housing programs in other jurisdictions were watching closely as Eugene’s decision regarding mold could have ramifications across the state. She said there were no state or federal guidelines related to acceptable levels MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing of mold and questioned whether the City wished to assume that responsibility. She said the ROA felt it was preferable to provide educational seminars to landlords and tenants alike, rather than incorporating it into the rental housing code. She encouraged the council to postpone incorporating mold into the housing program until those issues were studied and professional opinions sought. She also encouraged formation of a committee representing staff, landlords and tenants to discuss the future housing code program, as was done in Portland. She referred to a memorandum from staff indicating that the City would not assume any liability for mold; that would be passed on to landlords and it would be very expensive. Dennis Casady , Eugene, stated that Eugene’s housing program was based on the Corvallis model. He said the Corvallis ordinance included a sunset clause and the ROA had lobbied for a sunset clause in Eugene’s code. He said the ROA had also asked for a separate or designated account for fees collected by the housing programs, but that was not established. He said the Corvallis program assessed $8 per unit while Eugene assessed $10 per unit per year; the Corvallis program had one staff person to administer it and Eugene had three-and-a-half people to administer its program. He said the Eugene housing program, which only duplicated Oregon landlord/tenant law, had a $78,000 surplus annually. He was troubled that the ROA was not informed about the proposed changes to the ordinance and urged the council to reestablish instead of remove the sunset clause to assure that the City would continue to revisit the housing code and make adjustments as necessary in the future. Devin Gates , Maxwell Road, Eugene, commented that legal aid was available at no cost for tenants who qualified, as was the court. He said the law was very clear concerning retaliatory action towards tenants and provided punitive damages. He noted that units deemed unacceptable represented less than one percent of the rental market and asked out of fairness that the council consider protection for landlords from bad tenants. He expressed alarm with including mold in the ordinance. He said the state was specific about habitability and aside from leaking roofs and plumbing, all other mold was tenant-caused due to the environmental conditions they created, such as not using bathroom fans, heating rooms properly, poor housekeeping or failing to notify the landlord of a problem. He said no other jurisdiction addressed mold, with exception of minimal language used by the Gresham program. He cautioned the council about the potential unintended consequences to the availability and affordability of rental housing. Michael Steffen , Pine Canyon Drive, Eugene, stated he was also an ROA board member. He urged the council to retain a sunset provision to give rental property owners an opportunity to provide input on the housing program. Nancy Nichols , Deadwood Creek Road, Deadwood, said she owned five rental properties in Eugene, most of them for longer than 20 years. She said she occasionally found mold in a house when tenants moved, but not others, and felt that the mold could be attributed to tenant behavior, rather than the house. She was very concerned about adding mold to the ordinance. She did not object to the housing program initially, but gave several examples of how it had caused unnecessary delays in making a property available for rental because the City could not determine the nature of a problem or how to solve it. She noted that not all people were sensitive to mold, while others were sensitive to certain paints or adhesives. She asked if paints and glues would be added to the housing code. She said most mold was due to insufficient use of fans, heating or cleaning and she did not understand how housing inspectors could correct tenant habits. She said a better use of the surplus fees was to fast track solutions to code violations to provide landlords with definitive directions and any needed permits within three weeks of an inspection. Bill Slattery , Jackson Street, Eugene, stated he was a general contractor and forensic investigator for construction defects. He had been involved in many high profile mold and spore cases in Oregon and suggested that $78,000 would not be adequate to hire an industrial hygienist, which was what would be MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing required to certify a “mold infested” area. He said mold was an ill-defined event; some people were allergic to it and others were not. He said most problems with mold in houses and buildings related to moisture penetration and entrapment and dealing with it was an active, not passive event; an annual inspection would not prevent mold. He pointed out that the Center for Disease Control found no toxic mold; that was a term developed by the tort industry. He urged the council not to expand the ordinance to include mold. nd Sam Dotters-Katz , West 22 Avenue, Eugene, president-elect of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO), endorsed adoption of the ordinance changes that would augment Eugene’s rental housing standards. He understood there were state statutes in place related to some of those standards, but recourse through court proceedings was too time-consuming and expensive for the two large groups—low income renters and students living off campus. He said it was an access issue and not related to changing the rights of renters; only making their options for recourse more accessible and usable. th Tom Bode , East 18 Avenue, Eugene, said he was a University of Oregon students and renter who had mold in his unit. He followed the guidelines for using a fan and keeping the apartment warm, but his landlord ignored the mold problem. He supported adding mold to the rental housing standards as it represented a threat to the health of renters and renters alone should not bear the responsibility for prevention and remediation of mold. He said researched demonstrated that mold in the home could be a serious health threat, causing allergic reactions and irritating lungs; some mold created microtoxins, which caused illness and death. He said moisture caused mold and cleaning it up without addressing the underlying problem was only a temporary solution. Proper preventative measures could require significant structural changes to housing units for which renters lacked the expertise, resources and permission to perform; they were best undertaken by landlords. He asserted that there were federal guidelines asserting that mold cleanup could be dangerous. He urged the council to include mold in the housing standards as a necessity, not a luxury for rentals. Hilary Jones , University Street, Eugene, a University of Oregon student and renter, related her personal experience with mold in her housing unit to illustrate the need to include mold in the ordinance. She asked the council to adopt the ordinance to improve Eugene’s rental housing standards. Kari Herinckx, Kinsrow Avenue, Eugene, a University of Oregon student, thanked the council for giving students the opportunity to address the need to continue the work started four years ago when students fought for Eugene rental housing standards. She said students represented the needs of all renters. She said the three items being added to the ordinance—mold, security and lack of smoke detectors—reflected the top three complaints from renters. She said those issues represented tangible threats to the health and security of renters, who composed almost half of the City’s population, and passing the ordinance would assure a better standard of living. Paul Cauthorn , Baker Boulevard, Eugene, remarked that landlords provided a service to the community by making quality housing available at a reasonable fee. Tenants were also provided appliances and an on-call handyman when needed. He said tenants had full protection of their rights under State law that included many things the ineffective, redundant City housing program did not. He said staff was advocating for expansion of the program even though it had assisted few people and caused many evictions. He pointed out that Eugene was hosting the Olympic Trials next month and yet roads were deteriorating and public buildings in disrepair. He said the council had failed the citizens and urged it to stop chastising small businesses and correct its own mistakes. Patti Lundeen , Lusk Road, Eugene, spoke on behalf of Metro Multi-Family Housing Association, representing many members in the Eugene area. She said the association provided education on mold and MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing moisture and was opposed to the expansion of the housing code to include mold. She said it appeared staff was recommending the expansion in order to avoid returning surplus funds to landlords and lower inspection fees. She said mold, security and smoke alarm issues were frequently the result of tenant behavior and at the very least language addressing tenant responsibility should be included. Jami Sterling-Counard , Spyglass Drive, Eugene, stated she had been in the property management business for over 30 years. She agreed there were mold problems but believed in finding the right balance. She said the industry had a strong emphasis on education and wanted to do the right thing. She said she had not received any notifications of the proposed code revisions until last week and was troubled by the lack of input from the industry. She said when the program was established there were some issues that were highlighted: the program would sunset and there would be a review to determine costs versus need. She said that had not occurred and instead the program was being expanded. She said of the 815 calls the program received, 106 were legitimate concerns and of those only five resulted in violations. She was not certain how that demonstrated a need for the program. She urged the council to ask for an accounting of the fees collected by the program and delay a decision until a program review had been conducted and funds accounted for. Will Hays , Ridgley Boulevard, Eugene, stated he was an ROA member and agreed with previous speakers from the association. He listed 20 years of experience in property management and maintenance, specializ- ing in environmental and habitability issues. He had conducted training in mold and mildew abatement for a wide range of organizations and agencies. He emphasized that mold was everywhere and it required moisture. He said the Environmental Protection Agency had not established any thresholds related to mold and did not think the council had the expertise to establish that level. He said the ROA had procedures and materials that were available to anyone, including tenants, to address mold problems. He was also concerned that cost estimates were made without any regulatory experience. He urged the council to remove mold from the ordinance. Larry Sweek , Walterville, said he had been in real estate and property management and was concerned with the lack of communication with the industry. He supported establishing a committee that would bring stakeholders and resources together to discuss the issue and determine needs. John Huddleston , Patterson Street, Eugene, said he was a University of Oregon student. In 2005 he was living off campus when a fire started outside his window and the entire apartment caught fire. He said residents were able to escape, but he was badly burned; no one heard a smoke alarm and he agreed with the need for higher standards relating to smoke detectors. Mayor Piercy determined there was no one else wishing to speak and closed the hearing. She called for comments from the council. Councilor Ortiz agreed with the need to revisit the ordinance. She was concerned with the lack of participation from a significant part of the community as both tenants and landlords should be involved in discussions. She supported a sunset provision as a means for reviewing the program and determining that it was still meeting community needs. She had no objection to the provisions related to smoke detectors but felt the issue of mold needed to be examined in greater depth. She hoped the council would delay its decision until a work session could be held. Councilor Zelenka agreed with the need for more information on the issue of mold and asked for information from the Portland and Gresham programs which had addressed mold problems. He said the housing program was necessary because not all issues were handled on a voluntary basis. He did not think the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing program was duplicating regulatory requirements; it was a mechanism for assuring they were implemented. He said the proposed enhancements to housing standards represented basic health and safety issues. Councilor Bettman asked staff to review the public notice procedures for the ordinance. Marsha Miller, Planning and Development Department, replied that staff had returned to the council with a review of the public housing code as requested; two work sessions were held and the council provided clear direction on what was to be included in the ordinance. She said the City’s standard public notice procedures were followed as staff was not given directions to develop an advisory committee. She reminded the council that there had been at least three advisory committees on housing codes over the past 15 years. Councilor Bettman observed that whenever there was an ordinance regulating an industry, the industry wanted to help frame that ordinance. She did not feel an advisory committee was necessary every time the council considered revising the code; the public hearing provided adequate opportunity for input. She asserted that laws could not be predicated only on industry interests. She asked for a response from staff to public testimony if the council held another work session. She said over half of the housing units in Eugene were rental because the University of Oregon had externalized student housing needs to the community, making it necessary for the City to assure housing was habitable. She did not favor a sunset provision because the housing code was necessary to protect the health and safety of renters. Councilor Solomon remarked that a sunset provision provided an opportunity for the council to review the housing program and determine it was relevant and achieving the goals that were established for it and if it was not, revise the program to better meet needs. She was disappointed that staff did not provide more comprehensive notice of the proposed ordinance to the industry. She said no one was suggesting an advisory committee composed only of the industry and noted that Councilor Ortiz had emphasized the importance of including both landlords and tenants. She said the code was intended as a tool for both landlords and renters and instead it appeared it was being used against landlords. Councilor Solomon agreed with the need for an accounting of how program funds were spent and also asked for a report on the number of calls, call types and responses to those calls since the program’s inception. She did not find the program’s website helpful. She asked for clarification of how emergency provisions were enforced. Rachelle Nicholas, Planning and Development Department, replied that a section of the code addressed dangerous buildings and referred to the building code. She could not think of any instance where a house had been posted for rental housing code standards. She said what typically happened was that an inspection under the rental housing code identified safety concerns related to the State building code that were serious enough to warrant posting a house as a dangerous building. She said there had been four incidents of that nature. Councilor Solomon asked if the rental housing code emergency clause had been used to enter a building without notifying a landlord. She said that had been done under the State building code as the City’s staff enforced both the rental housing and State building codes. She said the program received both types of calls and if the problem was related to the State building code the tenant could authorize access; if the call related to the rental housing program a 24-hour notice was given to the landlord. Councilor Clark agreed with Councilor Ortiz and remarked that the large number of people attending the hearing illustrated the importance of a periodic review of the housing program and the need for public participation. He supported holding another work session on the ordinance and forming an advisory committee similar to the one established in Portland. He suggested it include University of Oregon students. Mr. Ruiz said he would poll the council on a work session and formation of an advisory committee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing Councilor Pryor agreed with the need to take additional time to consider revision of the ordinance in a more thoughtful manner and find the right balance. He regretted the lack of notification to some interested parties and stressed the importance of more public input from both landlords and tenants. He believed there were legitimate concerns about mold, but felt there was a lack of expertise at this point to identify a clear course and wanted more information before making a decision. Councilor Taylor stated she would not support another work session as the council had already heard everyone’s opinions. She said the purpose of the code was to protect renters and she had not heard any renters object to the proposed ordinance changes. She was opposed to a sunset provision and an advisory committee. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to remove the mold pro- vision from the ordinance and take it for consideration to a work session and bring the remainder of the ordinance back to the council for action on the scheduled date. She clarified that her motion did not adopt the ordinance and was intended to move forward with the other ordinance provisions without delay while the mold provision was discussed further. She was opposed to the creation of an advisory committee as it would be dominated by the industry because students and low- income renters did not have the resources to participate. Councilor Clark deplored the “us versus them” approach to problem-solving. He said there was disagree- ment among those who testified and the council about how to proceed and it was appropriate to involve more people in making a wiser decision. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Bettman’s intent and was in favor of moving forward with just the provisions related to security and smoke detectors and addressing mold concerns in a work session. He would support a scaled-down version of an advisory committee to obtain more public input. Councilor Pryor said he would support proceeding with the security and smoke detector provisions of the ordinance and removing the mold provision for further study. He did not feel the council had heard all of the opinions on mold and the rental housing program and an advisory committee could be very helpful. Councilor Ortiz supported the motion and asked staff to provide information on creating a smoke detector voucher program with the surplus program funds. Councilor Bettman asked that a work session on the mold provision be scheduled before the council’s break. Councilor Zelenka voiced concerns about holding a work session during the summer when students were not readily available. The motion passed, 5:2; Councilor Clark and Councilor Solomon voting in opposi- tion. Mr. Ruiz remarked that staff had responded to council direction in preparing the proposed ordinance and the public hearing had achieved its intended purpose in terms of obtaining public input. He said rental property owners would receive any future information related to the rental housing program. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Beam Development MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 10 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. th Bob Cassidy , East 27 Avenue, Eugene, suggested regarding the downtown as an education center, specifically using the Centre Court building for the Lane Community College (LCC) downtown facility. He said its structure and location were ideally suited to that purpose and encouraged the council to consider that possibility. th George Brown , West 17 Avenue, Eugene, encouraged the council to proceed with the Beam development proposal. He said Beam had successfully completed development projects in other communities, particu- larly in Portland, and was a competent, professional business. He suggested development could be accomplished in two phases with the first phase focused on filling the hole and redeveloping the Centre Court Building and saving the Washburne Building for the second phase. He felt the Beam project would encourage other development in the downtown area. Ms. Jerome raised a point of clarification regarding convening a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Councilor Bettman questioned why the URA agency needed to be convened when it was federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds that were being used. Hugh Prichard , Emerald Drive, Eugene, encouraged the council to pursue the Beam development proposal. He said a missing element had been lack of an anchor tenant, but the City could commit to sufficient space to drive the project forward. He described examples of other government entities that had done something similar by occupying problem buildings to help solve civic problems: ? City of Eugene – Atrium building ? Lane Community College – Montgomery Ward building ? City of Springfield – Springfield City Hall ? Lincoln City – municipal offices ? City of Corvallis – municipal offices Mr. Prichard said helping to solve difficult problems in the civic environment was an important part of the council’s mission. He envisioned a civic center that was developed incrementally and affordably instead of a new City Hall. Mayor Piercy determined there was no one else wishing to speak and closed the public hearing. She called for questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked if staff had spoken to LCC about the Centre Court building. Mike Sullivan, Planning and Development Department, replied that staff was engaged in ongoing conversation about its space needs in downtown and would follow up on the possibility of using the Centre Court building. Councilor Taylor thanked Mr. Cassidy for his suggestion regarding the Centre Court building. Councilor Clark was pleased that Beam had continued its commitment to downtown redevelopment. He still had some questions regarding the project, specifically environmental studies and whether water damage had MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 11 Public Hearing been assessed. Mr. Sullivan said Beam had conducted extensive investigations and was satisfied with the results. He said the City had provided the initial environmental studies to Beam and thought Beam would also pursue its own studies. Councilor Solomon asked how many square feet of occupancy had been committed to by the City. Mr. Sullivan replied that no specific commitment had been made but estimated that Beam would require between 30,000 and 50,000 square feet to be preleased before moving forward with the project. He said the new building to be constructed on the Aster development site and the existing Centre Court building would total about 120,000 square feet. Councilor Solomon asked if there would be a cap on costs and when the actual costs would be known. Mr. Sullivan said there would be a maximum cap on the City’s space commitment in the purchase agreement. He said Beam was still working on details of the pro forma that would be attached to the purchase agreement and that would include final lease rates. He expected the rate would be $1.83 per square foot or close to that amount. Councilor Solomon asked if there was a comparison of that rate to what the City was currently paying in total for the other space that would be vacated in order to move City functions into the Beam project. She asked if there were plans for the sale of other City properties such as 858 Pearl Street. Mr. Ruiz said staff would research the cost issue and provide the information to the council. He said the City was still committed to a private tenant as the first priority, but if the City did become a tenant the intent was to minimize the financial difference and evaluate financial opportunities related to other City properties. Councilor Solomon expressed concern about moving forward without a clear idea of the cost or adequate information to make a decision. She noted that detailed information on space costs had been provided by staff during discussion of the new City Hall project and should be readily available. She wondered what type of response there might be from local developers to a request for proposals if the City provided the incentive of being the anchor tenant. Councilor Bettman remarked that local developers had not responded when there was the implied benefit of an incentive. She was concerned that staff was moving forward with plans to vacate 858 Pearl Street and planning to sell it when the council had not provided that direction. She wanted a work session to discuss all aspects of vacating space, including the current cost of space in the Eugene Hotel building and 858 Pearl Street and plans to sell any City-owned property. She also asked how many square feet of space was rented by the Metro Partnership at the Chamber of Commerce office and the cost of that space. Councilor Clark agreed with the need for a discussion of the larger policy questions involved in addressing City office space needs. He noted that the City had issued a request for quotes, not a request for proposals, which was a substantive difference. He said the cost of project financing for a private developer was between six and seven percent, while the City’s bond rate was five percent. He questioned why the City did not develop the project. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 12 Public Hearing Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 13 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 27, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. She welcomed Councilor George Poling’s return and noted Kurt Corey was attending on behalf of City Manager Jon Ruiz. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported she had participated in the Memorial Day ceremony at West Lawn Cemetery and appreciated the opportunity to remember and honor people who had given so much for our country. Mayor Piercy said she had visited the Vet LIFT 2 collaboration between the City of Eugene and St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County to provide housing and wrap-around services for veterans. Mayor Piercy stated she had invited the public to join her in the Mayor’s one-on-one at 5:00 p.m. at Albertson’s at 311 Coburg Road on Thursday, May 29, 2008. Mayor Piercy announced papers had been signed on the Beam Development project downtown and the project was moving forward. Mayor Piercy reported the Ridgeline acquisition had taken place. Mr. Poling thanked his fellow city councilors for allowing him to be absent from recent City Council meetings. He also thanked his constituents for understanding his absence, noting he had attempted to return as many telephone calls as possible. He had been contacted by people who lived in the Autzen Stadium area about the baseball stadium and the 2010 move of the Eugene Emeralds to the stadium. Neighbors were concerned about noise and traffic. He asked if public hearings or other opportunities would be provided for public input on the proposal. Ms. Ortiz reported she had taken City Manager Jon Ruiz on a tour of Ward 7. She added a meeting would be held at Petersen Barn tomorrow night at 5:30 p.m. regarding railroad-related issues and Mr. Ruiz would attend a managers’ forum at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 29. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka congratulated Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor and Mayor Piercy for winning in the recent primary election. He was thrilled that Beam had signed the contract. He was intrigued and interested to hear that McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center was considering downtown Eugene as a possible site. The Budget Committee had been working hard, and had one remaining meeting, with an emphasis on adding patrol officers and filling pot holes. He thanked Ms. Bettman for proposing a money swap with Lane County that would benefit both the City of Eugene and Lane County. The University of Oregon arena project was proceeding. He noted over 95 percent of the materials from the Williams Bakery demolition had been recycled. The Fairmount Neighborhood appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to the Hearings Official regarding the arena conditional use permit (CUP) would be issued on June 3, 2008. He recently attended a Save Civic Stadium meeting last week and noted a website, www.savecivicstadium.org, was active. Another meeting would be held on Thursday, May 29, at 7:30 p.m. at Tsunami Books. He was distressed to see the issues raised and inappropriate comments made about Councilor Bettman on the police union website. He recently attended a conference in San Diego entitled Navigating the Carbon World. Ms. Solomon arrived t 5:40 p.m. Mr. Pryor passed. Ms. Bettman passed. Ms. Taylor reported she had the pleasure of helping cut the ribbon for the new gate at the Masonic Cemetery on May 25, 2008. The work was completed with help from the City of Eugene, the neighbors, volunteers and contributions from contractors and architects. The mausoleum was being restored with help from the City and other people. A concert would be performed by the Sacred Heart Singers on May 29, 2008. Mr. Clark had the opportunity to ask the first question at the May 23, 2008, City Club meeting of a group of young people. He congratulated and thanked Johnny Lake and students from Churchill High School and North Eugene High School, as well as people from Roosevelt High School in Portland, in response to race issues in the community. Conversations had been held to help the students grow and learn from the experience, and take the conversation to a positive place. Neighbors in Ward 5 planned to meet at Cal Young Middle School library to discuss improving Bond Lane. Ms. Solomon invited councilors to the We Are Bethel Celebration on June 7, 2008, at Petersen Barn. She said she would take City Manager Ruiz on a listening tour through Ward 6. Mr. Corey iterated he was filling in for City Manager Ruiz who was out of town. He said FY09 City Budget deliberations would continue tomorrow. Mayor Piercy noted all councilors had been given a copy of a book from Seven Stars Child Care. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring forward a proposal as soon as possible for approval by the council to place an amendment to the charter on the November 2008 ballot. The resolution, caption, question and summary shall provide for editing of the charter language in Section 15.a, External Review of Police, so that in Sec- tion 1, the words “is authorized to” and the word “may” is replaced with MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 2 Work Session the word “shall.” In subparagraph 2, the words “is authorized to” and the word “may” is replaced with the word “shall.” If approved by voters, this amendment of charter language shall do nothing more than edit the above words thus ensuring the ongoing and consistent functioning of the inde- pendent Police Auditor’s Office, and the Civilian Review Board (CRB). In the event it fails to pass, the current language of charter Section 15.a shall stand as written. Ms. Bettman expressed concerns over the language and implications that having a Police Auditor’s Office was an option. As political winds changed having that implication could undermine the function of the auditor’s office. Mayor Piercy appreciated the effort to tighten the language in the charter, noting that “shall” was directional and reflected what people voted for, and she would support the motion. Ms. Ortiz supported the motion on the assumption that this would go to the voters in November 2008, thus not requiring a special election that would incur additional costs. Mr. Clark noted 67 percent of the voters had spoken and it was a closed question. He would support the motion to the extent that the proposal would provide more effective language for the ordinance. He wanted to know when the resolution came back to the council if the language change substantively altered anything or if there were any caveats as to what the proposed change could imply. Mr. Zelenka saw this as a housekeeping issue, noting that prior to joining the council he assumed the Police Auditor and CRB were permanent parts of the charter rather than discretionary. He would support the motion. Mr. Poling was concerned about the cost and thought the November election would reduce any costs. He inquired about timeline and process for placing the proposal on the November 2008 ballot. City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that August 6, 2008, would be the last day for the City Council to adopt a resolution to put a measure on the ballot, after which the City Attorney had five days to prepare a ballot title. An appeal process was available if someone wished to challenge the ballot title after which the measure would move forward to the November election. Mr. Poling asked if this would open up the process to other changes in the charter by interested parties in this specific section of the charter. Mr. Lidz responded the appropriate time to propose additional changes would be when the resolution went before the council to call the election and set out the language proposed by Ms. Bettman. Council members could propose more changes prior to the resolution returning to the council. Mr. Poling agreed that any changes to this section of the charter should be by the public who supported the initial charter amendment. He would support moving the issue forward at this point with the caveat that it would create no substantial charter changes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor agreed with most of what had been said around the table. His support was based on the consistency point and he believed the proposed changes were consistent with the spirit of the initial charter amendment. The motion passed 8:0. Ms. Taylor stated she recently met Richard Owen, the son of the man who donated the land for the Owen Rose Garden. Mr. Owen said the family would not want the City to construct a building on the site for meetings, because the purpose of the rose garden was to be a place where people could smell the roses, be quiet and relax. B. WORK SESSION: MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM, BOUNDARY AND SELECTION CRITERIA Mr. Corey said the council had requested a work session on the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) program, and introduced Richie Weinman from Planning and Development (PDD). Mr. Weinman offered the staff report. The MUPTE program was enabled by state statute, for which the enabling legislation would sunset in 2012 unless extended during a future legislative session. The program was adopted to encourage new, higher-quality housing in the core area.. To be eligible, development must be five units or more and should provide a public benefit, as determined by the local jurisdiction. The program enables a ten-year property tax exemption on new housing. The land and any non-housing improvements continue to be taxed. The exemption applies to taxes owed to all jurisdictions because School District 4J also formally accepted the provisions. This was permissible under state law because Eugene and 4J together collect over 50 percent of local property taxes. Each application for an exemption must be approved by the council on a case by case basis. Mr. Weinman reviewed the history and criteria of the program in the City of Eugene. He then responded to questions from councilors. Mayor Piercy circulated an article from that day’s Register Guard which described the current construction activity in the university area and which illustrated the need for student housing in the area. Mr. Weinman noted two of the three apartments cited in the article were being built with MUPTE support. Ms. Ortiz stated it was important to discuss the tax exemption program, noting it was important to weigh both the public and private benefits of the program. She asked if there would be interest on the part of the council to expand the MUPTE into her ward, noting nothing had been built in the ward in a long time. She opined there needed to be other ways to attract the construction of multi-unit housing outside of the downtown area. While she understood and supported the philosophy of building student housing, she wanted to see the program connected to low-income housing because lower income people had fewer choices. Much of the low-income housing had disappeared because land had been provided for a homeless shelter and a trailer park had been closed because of negligent care of the trailers. Mr. Weinman explained the Housing Dispersal Policy that applied to family housing. Land bank sites were not being purchased nor were subsidies currently provided for family housing in areas that were already 50 percent low-income. Much of the area in Ms. Ortiz’ proposal was already at the 50 percent level and new subsidized housing had not been pursued in that area.. A 20-year MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 4 Work Session low income tax exemption is available. However, the economics of subsidized and low-income housing is that it takes more than tax exemptions to achieve that goal. With the 10- year MUPTE tax exemption, some low-income housing may be built if rents are high enough, but it is difficult to achieve in most neighborhoods. There is currently a low vacancy rate in Eugene which makes it difficult for low-income people to compete for the limited commodity. Ms. Bettman distributed two maps provided by Mr. Weinman, illustrating the Proposed MUPTE Boundary Expansion/Downtown Plan Area (blue map) and Proposed MUPTE Boundary Expansion/Old MUPTE Boundary (yellow map) areas. She said the MUPTE program was predicated on the assumption that properties would not otherwise be developed. Market factors and variables in the West University Neighborhood (WUN) impact development. Ms. Bettman said there was development in that neighborhood, as reported by an article in that day’s Register Guard, noting there were 900 University of Oregon (UO) freshman who did not have campus housing, in addition to other undergraduate and graduate students. The pressure of those housing needs was placed on the community. The City should not forego tax revenue where the market supported housing construction, but the playing field should be leveled where code barriers made construction challenging. Everyone should pay their share of taxes. Ms. Taylor said there was a big demand for housing in the university neighborhood and it would be built with or without a tax break. Everyone should pay taxes. She preferred going back to the pre-2004 MUPTE boundary because there was a benefit to filling the empty space downtown, and she was not willing to expand the boundary. Mr. Clark was challenged with the pre-2004 boundary that came away from the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) property as illustrated on the map, and created a disincentive for anything that might occur regarding a dense core around what might one day be built on the EWEB property, taking an option off the property. He considered the 900 incoming UO freshmen to be new members of the community who needed to be served with the appropriate housing choice, whether on or off campus, and did not consider them to be a cost of the university. He asked what the functional impact of ending MUPTE around the university would be. Based on his conversations with real estate professionals, Mr. Weinman believed there would be less construction. He understood that some of the projects were built without MUPTE because of the but for requirement, because developers had owned the land for a long time or had paid a below market rate for the land. With the current value of land at $60 to $80 per square foot, housing construction was no longer viable without the economic incentive. Some people had purchased properties with the intention of building knowing the MUPTE incentive was available. This knowledge of construction costs is supported by staff analysis of proposals for low-income housing. Mr. Clark opined the City would be acting in bad faith if policies stated the intent to incentivize creation of density in the core and around the university, encouraging people to buy properties with the idea that they would be able to build housing, after which the City changed the rules making development no longer affordable. He was concerned that the boundaries could be changed at this point. He added he would not be opposed to the idea of extending the boundary into Ms. Ortiz’s ward, and welcomed more conversation on the issue. Mr. Pryor was intrigued by the nature of the discussion as it applied to the structural nature of the MUPTE rather than the reactionary nature. He noted a year from now, the Register Guard MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 5 Work Session headline could be very different, adding the real estate market fluctuated. He proposed having a thoughtful structure in place around MUPTE that provided the ability to use it when needed. He asked if having MUPTE in place required its use, recalling that the council had voted not to use it in some situations in the past. Mr. Weinman confirmed MUPTE use was not required. Mr. Pryor asked if criteria or restrictions could be placed on MUPTE that would allow the council to offer circumstances under which MUPTE use would be available, and those under which it would not. He was less inclined to shrink, reduce or eliminate the possibility of use of MUPTE under any circumstance rather than provide more stringent criteria under which it could be used. Thus, expanding MUPTE into other areas could serve a structural benefit if good criteria were in place. He speculated that the application or use of MUPTE might be shifted from its original intent over time. He was reluctant to completely eliminate it as a tool, since there might be unforeseen circumstances in which the council would want to use it, and it would be a great deal of work to reimpose it. He fully supported control and strict standards, but did not support applying it simply because someone wanted it. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Weinman cited the downtown projects that had been built with MUPTE: Tate Condominiums, Broadway Place, and High Street Terrace. He th added WestTown on 8 was a low-income project that had received a 20 year low-income tax exemption. Ms. Solomon hoped councilors would not think that eliminating MUPTE in the university area would somehow drive up MUPTE-supported housing downtown, noting it clearly was not happening for a number of reasons in addition to parking and code issues previously mentioned. The same code, infrastructure and parking issues existed in the university area. She did not want the university area which still had a great deal of sorry-looking housing to be cut out. It was exciting to see new projects going up and she did not want MUPTE eliminated to drive up downtown development. She was pleased to support the boundary extension, noting land prices were going up and properties inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) were becoming scarcer. Expanding the MUPTE boundary would accomplish council goals in that part of town. MUPTE was only part of the picture and had been beneficial to the City. Many of the properties approved by previous councils were back on the tax rolls and were a huge benefit to the City. Mr. Zelenka said the goal of MUPTE was to stimulate multi-unit housing adding the boundaries had changed several times according to circumstances and to what the market was doing in various areas warranting a change in the boundary. He noted MUPTE was never guaranteed. He voted against recent applicants because he felt the developments would have been built without MUPTE. Staff research indicated that 321 units had been built during a recent three- year period of which only 29-30 percent was built with MUPTE. The UO had not historically provided new housing while it did have plans for future student housing development. The demand for the university area would continue to grow. The City was currently facing a budget deficit and he did not want to give away money where it was not necessary. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about why the area around Sixth Avenue and Seventh Avenue in the Trainsong neighborhood was included in MUPTE, Mr. Weinman said Ms. Ortiz had made that request and it presented an opportunity to redevelop deteriorating properties. Mr. Zelenka said the area in northwest Eugene needed stimulus to provide multi-unit housing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman wanted to incentivize where it was not attractive or profitable to build housing. The proposed addition requested by Ms. Ortiz worked for Ms. Bettman because this was an area of interest for the next Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route in Eugene which would be a great compli- ment to multi-unit housing that was not currently being built. She was not interested in regulating for quality standards, preferring that those issues be addressed in the code. She was concerned that affordable and low-income older houses were being torn down in the WUN. She asked if existing housing would be torn down in northwest Eugene under the proposed expansion displacing low-income people. She asserted it was about tax breaks and not development, and everyone should pay taxes. Mr. Weinman concurred that demolition of older homes and new construction in the university area cost more, adding the proposal was likely to occur on the west side as well. Typically redeveloped and new rentals tended to cost more per month than older rentals. Mr. Clark asserted the question was one of density policy. Everything the council did had an effect on what was or was not built in the community, and drove what and where development occurred regardless of whether it was incentives, regulation or density policy. He opined that without MUPTE some things would not be built, but with it or without it, development occurred, with a variety of impacts. People in the industry had told him that without MUPTE the only way to make a project profitable was to make it taller, with more bedrooms per unit, and increase the th parking load on the street, similar to what was occurring at 19 Avenue and Alder. He asked if without MUPTE more of that type of development would occur. Mr. Weinman responded that there was an increased chance that development that occurred would be of lesser quality. Development was difficult with an incentive and without an incentive there would either be no development or something of lesser quality. This was one of the reasons that the council adopted quality standards in the past. Mr. Clark said this was not about profitability, because people in the business of developing housing needed to make money or they would not stay in business. The question was what they could afford to build: either those things that worked well and fit with the City’s policy regula- tions and direction, or those things which created more problems. Ms. Taylor emphasized MUPTE was never a guarantee but had been interpreted as such over time. She said everyone should pay taxes, and the only way she would support exempting people from taxes for ten years was if there was a very clear benefit to the City and the community as a whole, and not the builder. The council could contribute to homelessness by encouraging people through incentives to build multi-family housing. We would no longer have run-down single room occupancy (SRO) development, the kinds of places that were not the best, but affordable, and better than being on the streets. She definitely wanted to get rid of the university area tax exemption, and wanted to take more time to think about the extension. Responding to Ms. Solomon, Mr. Weinman said MUPTE could be used for rehabilitation if it was an extensive rehabilitation project that created five or more units. Ms. Solomon said, in addition to previously cited reasons, while looking at the applications previously approved, it appeared that 95 percent of the applicants were local people investing back in the community, which was important to her. She noted local bankers, realtors and contractors were part of this investment pool, living in the community, wanting to make a difference and invest in the community, and MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 7 Work Session yield a greater benefit to the City in the end. It was not unreasonable to partner with them through this program. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to conduct a public hearing on an amendment to the MUPTE ordinance to incorporate the changes identified in attachments A and C-3. th Mr. Zelenka stated the developer of the 19 Avenue and Alder Street project had modified the project from seven to four stories, and was providing one parking space per unit, which was more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. He understood that the Portland metropolitan area used a program similar to MUPTE for transit routes, which would be similar to what would occur in Eugene if the proposed LTD EmX route was built in west Eugene. He asserted MUPTE was not about partnering but about adding incentive to create something that would not otherwise occur. In the WUN, what was occurring had occurred and would continue to do so without the incentives. In tough budget times, the City could not afford providing incentives where they were not needed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the boundary to not include the West University Neighborhood for the public hearing. Ms. Bettman sought clarification of Mr. Zelenka’s amendment. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the boundary to not include the West University Neighborhood for the public hearing, and to include the downtown area plus Sixth Avenue and Seventh Ave- nue, Highway 99, and Trainsong. Mr. Lidz explained the relationship of the two maps previously offered by Ms. Bettman to the main motion. Ms. Bettman said she was referring to the blue map. Mr. Pryor declined to accept Mr. Zelenka’s amendment as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said she would support the amendment because exempting taxes for ten years in the university area shifted the tax burden to other City taxpayers. Ms. Ortiz wanted separate motions for the extension of MUPTE, retraction of the university area, and the criteria for the standards. She wanted to hear what the community had to say about standards. Additionally, she invited other councilors to tour her ward and neighborhood at anytime to see the challenges in her community. Mr. Clark clarified his previous comments regarding the map and EWEB properties. He had misread the map and his comments were based upon that misreading. He was troubled by the continued discussion that somehow everybody else bore the cost of implementing MUPTE which he considered nonsensical. Responding to questions from Mr. Clark, Mr. Weinman said eleven of eighteen properties that had come off the tax rolls had been returned. Mr. Weinman said the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) included a table of the last four properties that had come back onto the tax rolls that illustrated: ? annual property tax prior to MUPTE MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ? revenue lost on removed improvement in year one and estimated 10-year total ? total tax paid on land during MUPTE exemption ? average tax paid annually during MUPTE ? current annual tax paid on land and improvements Mr. Clark averred that a substantive amount of tax revenues now coming into the City would not be coming in without MUPTE. The net effect was a much greater amount of money coming to the City. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Ortiz for raising the issue of expanding the boundaries, which previous councilors had not been willing to do. He supported extending the boundary to the north and west, and supported sending it to a public hearing. He was dismayed by the comment that by granting a MUPTE, the council increased other peoples’ taxes. It was wrong and misleading, and not what occurred. The public benefit had been discussed numerous times in the past. He was opposed to reducing the current MUPTE area and removing the WUN. Reading from a table in the AIS, Ms. Solomon said Hilyard House paid $3,357 annually in property taxes when the property was removed from the tax rolls in 1996, and now paid $31,320 annually in property taxes. This had been a huge benefit to the City. During the same ten-year exemption period, the revenue lost was $23,704. She would not support the amendment because she did not support limiting the purpose of the public hearing to presume that the WUN was out and the only focus of the discussion was the Downtown Plan boundary and the extension. She did not want to limit public discussion on the issue. Related to the public benefit, she agreed with Mr. Poling, that this had been discussed in the past. There were already standards in place that should be adhered to. Mr. Zelenka theorized that reducing the boundary was due to the fact that development was happening in WUN, iterating that 70 percent of the units built there during the last three years had not used MUPTE. The area would continue to be redeveloped based on student demand and market conditions. Tax dollars were being given away for something that was going to happen anyway. Mayor Piercy said she was struggling with the concept of using tax incentives to get certain outcomes, but not offering these incentives when the council felt they might not be needed. She thought payback over time was beneficial and thought the benefit could be realized now with the use of MUPTE. She was willing to reduce the area and see if it continued to move forward, move it into a different area, and keep the downtown area. If unintended or unanticipated results occurred, they could be addressed in the future. Ms. Bettman said MUPTE was not just a tax giveaway from the City’s General Fund, but also impacted Lane County and the school districts. When properties came back on the tax rolls, the lost revenues were not made up. Mr. Clark asked how difficult it would be to reinstate MUPTE boundaries if they were reduced. Mr. Weinman responded that a City Council ordinance would be required to reinstate MUPTE boundaries. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Poling had three questions that staff could respond to in memorandum form prior to the public hearing. Referring to the 70 percent of developments built without MUPTE cited by Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Poling asked how many projects had been applied for and denied, but built anyway? Of the 30 percent that were built with MUPTE, how many would not have been built without MUPTE? How many applications were submitted, turned down and nothing was built? Mr. Clark asked of those that were turned down, how were the plans substantively altered in terms of what was actually built before being built without MUPTE? Ms. Bettman asked for clarification in memorandum form prior to the public hearing on whether construction of five units during rehabilitation was above and beyond existing units, or the units most recently torn down. Ms. Taylor said she would vote for the amendment but would not vote for any expansion beyond the pre-2004 boundary. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the amendment. The vote on the amendment passed 5:4, Councilors Bettman, Taylor, Ze- lenka, and Ortiz and Mayor Piercy voting in favor; Councilors Clark, Poling, Pryor and Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz left at 1:15 p.m. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Weinman said the City did not monitor MUPTE documentation after the fact. She asked that the information be provided prior to the public hearing. The amended motion passed 6:1, with Councilors Pryor, Clark, Poling, Taylor, Bettman, and Zelenka voting in favor, and Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: FIREWORKS REGULATIONS Deputy Chief Joe Zaludek, Fire and Prevention Section, provided the staff report. He reviewed the background of the issue, noting no formal action had been taken by the council on previous correspondence from Fire and EMS staff. The deadline for submitting retail sales permit applications to the State Fire Marshal’s Office for the current retail period scheduled run from June 23 through July 7, 2008, was April 15. Permitted retailers were currently well into their purchases for fireworks inventory and other preparations for this season. The Eugene 2008 Olympic Track and Field Trials were scheduled for June 27 through July 6. There was a staffing conflict due to the extraordinary requirements for all area public safety agencies for the trials, which meant there were not sufficient Fire or Police resources available to sustain a concerted enforcement program for the 2008 Fourth of July fireworks season. Additionally, the River Road patchwork of jurisdictions would create an enforcement and political challenge with neighbors being subject to conflicting regulations for the same activity, and currently there was no interest in fireworks ordinance changes on the part of Springfield. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Zaludek said in 2007, 32 permits were issued with the City for retail fireworks sales. The State Fire Marshal’s Office documents fire works damage. In 2007, over $1 million in damage was caused by fireworks and over 10,000 injuries were reported in the State of Oregon. Approximately 50 percent of those injured were 15 years old and younger, and 95 percent of the injuries resulted from safe and sane fireworks. Mr. Zaludek asserted it would be very challenging to pursue changes to fireworks regulations other than with a regional plan that addressed the entire area, similar to the Seattle and Flagstaff areas. A regional plan was currently under consideration in Washington, D.C. Mr. Clark thanked staff for the background information. He had chaired the Active 20-30 Club Freedom Festival fireworks show held at Autzen Stadium for a number of years, and Alton Baker Park more recently. He noted enforcement problems with illegal fireworks in his ward last year. He did not think the problem was with legal fireworks, but rather an enforcement problem with illegal fireworks. Mr. Pryor asked if statistics were available for complaints related to legal versus illegal fireworks. Anecdotally, the vast majority of complaints he received were related to big, loud, explosive, illegal fireworks that theoretically could not be purchased legally in Oregon. He was also concerned that at this late date, vendors had purchased their inventories in preparation for sale, and any action by the council at this point could create an enormous financial burden in an a area that was not the basis for the complaint. He concurred with Mr. Clark that the issue was an enforcement issue rather than a sale issue. Mr. Pryor further expressed concern about the length of time fireworks resonate throughout the community and wished to see some effort to regulate this time. Ms. Ortiz returned at 1:25 p.m. Mr. Zaludek opined a majority of complaints result from illegal fireworks. There is concern with the use of fireworks and the potential for a fire in the south hills or interface areas that could expand to other homes. Mayor Piercy inquired about the types of enforcement that occurred around the Fourth of July. Mr. Zaludek stated the Eugene Police Department (EPD) recently conducted a training session regarding the applicable Eugene Code and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Although EPD would enforce applicable laws, they had a limited enforcement capacity on the streets, particularly with the Olympic Trials occurring during the same time period. The City of Portland invested approximately $10,000 annually for the Fire Marshal and police officers to team up to provide enforcement in the Portland area. Ms. Taylor said it was too late to do anything this year, but she received many complaints from south Eugene and other areas because people are concerned about a fire in the south hills area. She was disappointed the issue had not come to the council sooner, as she had hoped fireworks could be limited to one day this year. She asked if legal fireworks were quiet? Mr. Zaludek said the legal fireworks were not always quiet, but many of the extremely loud ones heard for days were either remanufactured from legal fireworks or illegal fireworks that caused many of the very loud percussion booms that had a negative impact on people and animals. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Taylor wished to consider Council Option 2, Engage Lane County and the City of Springfield in developing regional strategy now for next year. She thought a regional policy and a time limitation would be good. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zaludek said in Flagstaff, Arizona, an extravagant professional laser light show took place, in lieu of fire works, eliminating the loud noise and fire danger. Mr. Zelenka had no problem with legal fireworks, but opined the illegal ones were getting out of hand. In the past, fireworks were heard on the Fourth of July, but they had expanded to the week before and the week after, and much later than the 10:00 p.m. hour when people were supposed to be quiet. He asked if there were ways to increase the cost of fireworks by one cent to raise funds to cover the costs of additional enforcement. He was also concerned about fire potential in the south hills and asked if fireworks could be banned. Mr. Zaludek said it did not appear there was a need for a ban this year, but the Fire and EMS staff should come to the council if it thought there was a severe fire danger due to draught or other conditions. He was interested in exploring enforcement and a regional strategy. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Fire Chief Randy Groves confirmed that fireworks in the th south hills, south of 18 Avenue, had been banned in 1995 due to severe draught conditions. Ms. Ortiz said although she had problems with illegal fireworks, she was challenged with the enforcement issue. In her neighborhood, as in others, there were problems with the big booms spread over many days. Returning veterans had problems and many people left town for a week or so to get away from the noise. She wondered if Springfield would be willing to talk about this, and if Springfield would have the same feeling. She was willing to investigate the issue with Springfield. She added the use of legal fireworks by children should be monitored by adults. She cautioned about going down the road of expecting the police to enforce numerous complaints. Mr. Poling concurred no action should be taken this year, but was in favor of exploring the regional approach. As a former law enforcement officer, he knew the nightmare of navigating the patchwork of jurisdictions. He concurred the problem was not the legal fireworks, but rather the illegal fireworks and the people that use them. He said the council was missing the point when considering limiting the time during which fireworks could be used. He said we were not the only culture that celebrated holidays by use of fireworks and it was wrong to limit when legal fireworks could be used. The vendors generally did a good job of monitoring the sale of fireworks. Mr. Zaludek explained that any firework which could rise higher than six feet and explode was illegal. The challenge was that such fireworks could be purchased legally in Washington and Idaho, and transported across state lines into Oregon. th Mr. Clark understood officers were swamped around July 4, but thought there needed to be a coordinated, extra response. He wanted to look at creative ways to address the issue this year if possible. He also wanted to turn this into a positive community celebration, with the City of Eugene encouraging people to go to the larger celebrations, rather than staying in their neighborhoods, and by creating a broad, open area for people to use their fireworks which could be well-monitored. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 12 Work Session Mayor Piercy liked the positive direction of the conversation, noting the education piece was important. She agreed the issue needed to be addressed now for next year. She thought a regional approach was a good idea, but there were likely other non-regulatory things which could be done locally and would be effective. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Zaludek said only EPD could cite and enforce regulations. He added enforcement by a Deputy Fire Marshal would require a change in ordinance. Because of large block parties and the potential for confrontation, police were often called to conduct enforcement. Ms. Solomon expressed frustration with the issue of citizens getting short-changed as a result of the Olympic Trials and she resented the fact that none of the police or firefighters from all of the public safety agencies could help the City out on the Fourth of July because they would be wrapped up in the trials. She asked if a phone number could be set up to receive calls or if police volunteers could be used to cite or take down names and addresses of locations where illegal fireworks were being used. She expected the City could do more than was laid out in the AIS. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that at the earliest convenience, the City of Eugene engage in conversations with Lane County and the City of Spring- field to develop a regional strategy for greater enforcement of illegal fireworks. The motion passed 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 13 Work Session ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 28, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(e), Mayor Piercy called the Eugene City Council into executive session to discuss real property transactions. Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session and moved the council into public session. B. WORK SESSION Potential Hospital Siting City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced the item, requesting more council direction on potential hospital sites. The council was also joined for the item by Planning and Development Department Executive Director, Susan Muir, and City Attorney Glenn Klein. Ms. Ortiz declared a possible conflict of interest due to her employment with PeaceHealth. Ms. Muir referred the council to the letter she sent to McKenzie-Willamette Hospital about the potential of th using the downtown site at 13 Avenue and Willamette Street as a site for its new hospital. She shared a map of the area and indicated that staff was not recommending the inclusion of the Olive Plaza or Florence Apartments due to the expense of relocating the residents of those developments and the time and complexity it would add to the process. Ms. Muir reviewed the acts the City was willing to commit to in regard to assisting the hospital to relocate to the site in question, which included financial assistance, the provision of parking, and connection to other medical services. She envisioned the City would construct a public parking garage and provide bulk rate permit parking in the existing parking structures downtown. She said there were also park and ride options to consider. Ms. Muir said the site would require a conditional use permit (CUP), some code variances, and a transportation impact analysis (TIA). She believed the necessary regulatory processes could be run concurrently. She noted it was possible the footprint available for the hospital could be expanded by the vacation of alleys. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 28, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Muir reminded the council of the adjacent downtown urban renewal district and raised the potential of expanding it to include the hospital site. She called attention to the staff-prepared motion expressing support for the site. Mayor Piercy thanked McKenzie-Willamette Hospital for its interest in the site and expressed appreciation to staff for its creative work. She acknowledged the challenges that lay ahead but thought the site, if selected by the hospital, would be a great community asset. Referring to the apartment buildings in the area, Mr. Clark asked why the City was willing to relocate businesses but not residents. Ms. Muir said that the situation involved multiple tenants with multiple issues, which would increase the time and complexity of the processes, adding uncertainty to the deal, and certainty was very important to the hospital. She noted that there were fewer affected businesses than affected residents. Mr. Clark understood that the hospital had a list of preferred sites, which did not include this site. He asked Ms. Muir to characterize the hospital’s response to the site. Ms. Muir said the City’s offer had gotten the attention of the hospital representatives, who expressed interest in the site. She added she did not have a list of the hospital’s priority sites but rather had provided the hospital with the City’s suggestions. Mr. Clark recalled the council had last directed staff to pursue the Riverfront Research Park site. City Manager Ruiz concurred with that recollection, but pointed out he had also heard from councilors of the importance of a site on the south side of the river. The City attempted to work out a deal with the University of Oregon but when it did not appear to be feasible, he looked to the council’s other direction. Mr. Clark said he made a motion that the City should do what it could to help site the hospital to the degree possible and he appreciated the leadership shown by staff in finding a site. He hoped the City kept all options and all potential sites in mind to ensure that the hospital was sited in Eugene. City Manager Ruiz did not think the hospital had taken any sites off the table and neither had staff. City Attorney Klein confirmed the hospital had not taken sites off the table, but its representatives had indicated to the City that, with respect to Eugene sites, the site in question was of higher interest than any other Eugene site. The hospital was cautiously interested in the site and found it more interesting than other sites in north Eugene. Mr. Poling recalled that the council had discussed two priority sites in addition to the research park site. He reminded the council of the motion he had offered that if the research park fell through, staff would work with the hospital on the other two sites. However, he continued to believe that the hospital would decide where to build its new facility, and that was why he thought the City needed a Plan B. He thought the City needed to establish a threshold number with the hospital for either for the number of properties or property owners. Once that threshold was reached, the site would be dropped. Mr. Poling anticipated that if the City decided to get into the real estate business it would pay inflated prices for the properties in question. Mr. Poling suggested that staff prepare information about expanding the downtown renewal district boundaries and the revenue return that would result. Ms. Taylor thought the site in question a great site and she believed the community supported it. People she knew thought PeaceHealth should have moved there rather than to Springfield. She did not generally favor MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 28, 2008 Page 2 Work Session expanding urban renewal but in this case felt a compelling reason such as this might be justification. She agreed that the hospital would decide where to go but pointed out the City could decide the level of assistance it wanted to provide. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged staff’s hard work and creativity in developing the proposal, which he supported. He supported expanding the district. He acknowledged much work remained to be done but he thought a hospital in downtown would be a great thing for downtown and a great thing for Eugene. Ms. Bettman agreed the hospital would decide where to locate. She thanked staff for taking a proactive approach by identifying a site and making a proposal to the hospital. It did not mean the hospital would choose it, but it was a site supported by the community and would provide services south of the river. The council would not be prejudicing the outcome of any process by declaring its support for the site, and she did support it. Ms. Bettman believed that the use of district dollars were best leveraged for a large public benefit and she thought the hospital satisfied that goal and the use of urban renewal dollars dedicated to a hospital use justifiable. Ms. Ortiz also supported the site and noted it was used as a small community hospital in the past and that the hospital’s loss had been mourned. She thought it would be good to return the site to its original roots. Mayor Piercy also supported the proposal. While she thought there were still “sizable mountains” for the community to climb, she thought it worthwhile to move forward. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to support the proposal for McKenzie- Willamette Hospital as described in Attachment B of this report, and to locate a full-serve th hospital in Eugene at the 13 Avenue and Willamette Street redevelopment site. Mr. Clark was willing to support the motion to see a hospital sited within Eugene. He had some concerns about the impact of the proposal on adjacent businesses, and businesses within the footprint, but with those reservations would support the motion. Mr. Poling also supported the motion due to the interest shown by the hospital and because there were other sites upon which the City could fall back. He was also concerned about the impact of the proposal on well- established businesses in the community and reiterated an interest in establishing a threshold number. Ms. Bettman expressed enthusiastic support for the motion. She pointed out that every site had challenges; some were complex and could not be overcome. This site had challenges, but she thought the council could move through those and meet the timeline as provided by staff. She thought compared to other options, the site compared favorably. Mayor Piercy supported meeting with affected businesses as soon as possible. Mr. Clark said there were other properties that could be moved forward on a quick timeline. He noted that one of the businesses involved was the oldest in Lane County, and he hoped the City dealt with it appropri- ately. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 28, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said the Mayor’s Amazon Headwaters Acquisition Committee was in the process of completing its work and he expected a draft report soon. He said the committee passed a motion that requested that the Mayor and council review the Green and Beverly appraisals to ensure they were Yellow Book-compliant. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the City Council do a review of the Green and Beverly property appraisals to ensure that they were Yellow Book-compliant and they include a Desk and Field Review of the properties. City Attorney Klein recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to undertake the review. Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor accepted that as a friendly amendment. Mr. Clark said he supported the motion as a committee member but expressed dismay that the item was coming up at this time without notice to the council. Ms. Bettman asked the time involved. Mr. Zelenka estimated six to eight weeks. Ms. Bettman wanted to seek multiple appraisals on the properties to collaborate the initial appraisal. Mr. Poling found the introduction of the topic offensive without any notice and particularly in light of the delay of the originally scheduled item. He was unsure if he would support the motion and suggested it was typical of the way the issue had been addressed from the start. He asked that agendas be set and maintained. Mr. Pryor agreed on the need to have actual appraisals for the properties. If the motion moved the City down the road toward that, he was fine. He asked if the committee had asked Mr. Zelenka to offer the motion. Mr. Zelenka said yes. He noted that Mr. Clark was at the meeting where the item was discussed. He did not think it was the first time the issue had been mentioned as the Mayor had raised it during items. In addition, three councilors were on the committee. Mr. Pryor suggested the council, in process session, discuss how to handle such motions as he believed there should be a process for vetting motions so councilors were not surprised at meetings, and so they had time to get background information and get their questions answered as well as provide notice to the public. Mr. Clark did not recall the committee recommending that the item go forward in advance of the final recommendations it intended to forward. When he offered the body a motion on May 12 he had sent out notice in advance of the motion to provide for discussion. He thought the motion had implications the council needed to consider and considered it premature. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to table the motion. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. City Manager Ruiz indicated the council would have to approve another appraisal. The result of the motion would be an appraiser’s assessment of the existing appraisals. Ms. Bettman noted that she would have offered a motion to table Item C due to some potential action the Board of County Commissioners might take in regard to an appeal from Junction City. Ms. Bettman said that councilors had the ability to bring up a motion when ever they wished. She did not think the motion represented a breech in process but rather the process to which all had agreed. Ms. Taylor concurred. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 28, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka apologized, saying he had intended to bring up the item earlier but ran out of time. He agreed with Mr. Pryor that a better process could be in place and protocol established. He believed the motion was time sensitive. Mr. Pryor said just because someone had the right to do something did not make that action appropriate. To bring something up without any notice was not appropriate. One could bring something up at the eleventh hour intending to short-circuit the process, rather than facilitate it. If asked to vote on the motion, he needed to give it thought and a lack of time did not help that. He was elected to give such items thoughtful consideration. Dropping motions on the table at the last minute was antithesis to that. He could not act thoughtfully if given something on such short notice. He suggested the council was bound by propriety rather than law. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor. However, she would support the motion although she wished there was time to expand knowledge about the issue. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to table the motion to June 4, 2008. The mo- tion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. C. WORK SESSION Coordinated Population Projections This item was postponed due to a lack of time. . Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 28, 2008 Page 5 Work Session