Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A - Minutes ApprovalEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: February 28, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2005, Work Session, January 24, 2005, Work Session, January 26, 2005, Work Session, and February 8, 2005, Process Session. ATTACHMENTS A. January 19, 2005, Work Session B. January 24, 2005, Work Session C. January 26, 2005, Work Session D. February 8, 2005, Process Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050228\S0502282A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall January 19, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap& Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Measure 37 Update and Effect on Planning and Development Work Plan City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council that, following the passage of Ballot Measure 37, it adopted an ordinance so the City could process claims made under the measure. He introduced Planning Director Susan Muir and City Attorney Glenn Klein, who were present to discuss other issues related to the measure and its impact on the Planning Division work plan. Planner Nell Bj6rklund was also present to answer questions. Mr. Klein reported that the City of Eugene had yet to.receive a Ballot Measure 37 claim; Lane County had received a handful, and the City of Springfield had been informally notified it faced one or two claims. He said that around the state, slightly more than 100 claims have been filed, most of them with counties. About 40 percent of those claims were made by those wishing to build a single-family house on their property. Another 40 percent were those filed by property owners wishing to develop rural subdivisions; the remaining 20 percent fell into a number of other categories. Mr. Klein noted a lawsuit had been filed against the State and State officials as well as against Clackamas, Washington, and Marion counties by several farm bureaus and 1,000 Friends of Oregon, who were seeking to have the ballot measure set aside. A number of issues were raised in the suit, including equal privileges and immunities and the separation of powers. Until the Circuit Court issued a decision and it was acted on by higher courts, the case would not have any impact on the actions taken by Eugene or other cities or counties outside the specific defendants in the case. He did not anticipate a decision by the Court of Appeals for at least two years. Mr. Klein reported that at the Oregon Legislature, some bills related to the implementation of Ballot Measure 37 had been filed. He did not know which bills would gain support. He said a joint session had been held by the House and Senate land use committees, which heard testimony from a wide variety of parties regarding possible adjustments to the measure. He noted that the representative of Oregonians in Action, a sponsor of the measure, had indicated his belief that no changes were needed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Klein reported that several weeks ago, Governor Ted Kulongoski's legal counsel announced that waivers made under Ballot Measure 37 were not transferable in most cases. He had not yet seen the written opinion. Mr. Klein said that he and Ms. Muir reviewed the Planning Division work program and concluded that, with the possible exception of the City's Goal 5-related work, nothing needed adjustment. Ms. Muir reviewed the City's progress on meeting its State commitments with regard to periodic review of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, in particular its work on meeting the State mandates set out under Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources. The intent of the effort was to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. She briefly overviewed the history of that effort. She noted that the actions the City had taken in regard to that effort had already been appealed twice. Ms. Muir said the City was working to meet a July 1, 2005, deadline for its Goal 5 work. She said several months of work and public input-gathering remained. She anticipated a controversial and contentious process. Staff had been informed any decision would be appealed, no matter what it was. Ms. Muir noted that Eugene would be one of the first jurisdictions adopting Goal 5 work following the passage of Ballot Measure 37 and that the City's work would be watched closely. In conclusion, Mr. Klein said staff was not recommending the City shift directions in regard to its Goal 5 work. He believed that would be premature. He recommended the City go through the process and determine what protection measures it wished to adopt. In June, staff would identify the potential Ballot Measure 37 implications of the measures satisfying Goal 5. Assuming the protection measures were not exempt and there was a reduction in property value due to a local ordinance, a property owner probably would have a valid Ballot Measure 37 claim. He said that he and Ms. Muir met with staff of the Department of Land Conservation and Development the previous week, and he believed that if the City received many claims, the State would be willing to work with Eugene to develop something that satisfied Goal 5 while avoiding such claims. Staff had developed some options it was beginning to explore in regard to limiting the City's exposure to Ballot Measure 37 claims for the council's later consideration. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the background information provided to the council. He concurred with the staff recommendation that the City should continue its natural resource inventory work. The City Council would then be able to adopt any ordinance with "its eyes open" regarding the potential risk. Mr. Kelly asked about the recommendation of the Jobs and Land Use Roundtable that an uplands inventory be conducted. Ms. Muir said that staff requested additional information from the roundtable. At this time, the inventory was not on the work program. Mr. Kelly suggested further discussion in June. Mr. Poling asked if any claims had been filed directly with Circuit Court. Mr. Klein said no. Under the provisions of the measure, a property owner must first file a claim with the City, wait 180 days, and then go to court. Mr. Poling asked for more information about the appeals mentioned by Ms. Muir. Ms. Muir said the first appeal was made by property owners objecting to having their property included in the City's Goal 5 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 2 Work Session inventory and, in that case, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) upheld the City. The second appeal was filed by an individual property owner objecting to the inclusion of her property on the inventory; in that case, the decision was remanded to Lane County, and the State ordered the property taken off the inventory. Mr. Poling asked the basis for the appeals. Ms. Muir said a number of different issues were involved, but essentially the property owners in question objected to the inclusion of their properties in the inventory. There were no physical commonalities between the properties involved in the appeals. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said municipalities generally have no obligations to provide municipal services to residents living outside city limits. He said that with regard to rural subdivisions, even if a jurisdiction waived a minimum parcel size requirement, for example, that did not mean a rural subdivision would be built. Other regulations would probably have to be waived as well, and that might not occur. For example, in the case of a large subdivision, it was unlikely a developer would be able to get water and sewer services. He had not heard of any large rural subdivisions that would be located outside an urban growth boundary or within the urban transition area locally. Ms. Bettman said she believed the real impact of Ballot Measure 37 would be on the City's inability to regulate property in the future. She thought the council needed to consider what it could do to balance the impact of the measure. If one could make the argument that zoning or land use changes decrease a property's value, the City could argue that the opposite was true, and that such zoning and land use changes increased a property's value. She wanted the City to pursue that concept to determine whether it could capture that increase in value and create a fund to pay for Ballot Measure 37 claims. Ms. Bettman asked staff to discuss what significant Goal 5 resources were in question in the inventory. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the inventory included wetlands, riparian areas, upland wildlife habitat areas. The Delta Ponds system, the Willamette River, and the Amazon headwaters were among notable features in the inventory. Ms. Bettman asked how the City could move forward and develop some proposals to implement her suggestion. City Manager Dennis Taylor suggested that Ms. Bettman poll her fellow councilors for a work session on the topic, noting it would compete with other council work plan demands. He added that the subject was complex and could involve action by the State legislature. Mr. Klein concurred that it would not be simple to accomplish what Ms. Bettman was interested in doing. He said that such an approach had been discussed following the passage of Ballot Measure 7. There were some potential options, but it would not be a short discussion given the legal issues involved and some preemptions that existed in State law. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Muir said the City did not have an analysis of property purchases that indicated any number of potential claims. She said that in the case of the inventory, all the affected property owners would have potential Ballot Measure 37 claims as the regulations being contemplated were new. Mr. Kelly again emphasized that the inventory should go forward. He said that "knowledge was power," and there was value in understanding the significance of individual natural resources. What the City subsequently did about those resources was another question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Referring to the Planning Division's work plan, Mr. Kelly encouraged staff to do public outreach to solicit key amendments to the Land Use Code. He suggested that if a member of the public suggested a key amendment to the Land Use Code that required substantial effort or had citywide implications, staff should check in with the council to see if there was interest in moving forward. Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Muir that the majority of the funding appropriated for amendments to the Land Use Code had not yet been spent. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the work plan item entitled "Refinement Plan Audit." Ms. Muir explained that the Planning Commission had heard citizen complaints that there were neighborhoods without refinement plans that wanted them, and neighborhoods with outdated refinement plans that would like them updated. The commission hoped to take a comprehensive look at all refinement plan issues and prioritize them to get an idea of what needed to be worked on first. She thought the commission would have more discussion on the item prior to the joint meeting with the council in June. Mr. Kelly thought the effort sounded promising. Ms. Bettman did not think the refinement plan audit shbuld be a high priority without a commitment of resources. She thought it should be made a high priority. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about "definition creep," and asked that specific definitions come back to the council regarding the terms "mixed-use" and "nodal." Ms. Bettman requested more information regarding what would be spent on the site-specific nodal planning. Ms. Muir recalled that there were two $100,000 allocations split between the Land Use Code update and the site-specific planning. Ms. Muir said that $60,000 was allocated to the Land Use Code, and $140,000 was allocated to site-specific mixed use planning. She referred Ms. Bettman to the two-year work program for the funding allocations. Ms. Taylor agreed there was value in proceeding with the inventory. The information was important, regardless of what was done with it. Ms. Taylor noted that employment projections for the nodes had increased, and she asked what types of jobs were involved, and the wages. Ms. Muir said she would check to see if that data was available. Ms. Taylor requested a council tour of the various nodes. Ms. Taylor noticed marketing materials were mentioned in the materials related to the topic, and said any kind of City "marketing or propaganda" concerned her. Ms. Muir said that the information would be educational rather than persuasive. She encouraged Ms. Taylor to visit the division's web site for examples. Ms. Taylor referred to the mention of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards in the nodal development implementation work program and asked if its inclusion was a way to eliminate the standards. Ms. Muir said that was not the intent. Ms. Taylor asked what staff meant by the reference to "developing new tools." Ms. Muir said that could refer to regulation, for example. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if "nodal development" and "smart growth" were considered the same thing. Ms. Muir interpreted nodal development as the local term for smart growth, a more nationally known terminology. Ms. Taylor said that the mention of "smart growth" would alarm some people. Ms. Muir emphasized that the work plan did not represent adopted regulations, but conceptual thoughts for the City to consider. The City Council was the ultimate decision-maker. Ms. Taylor did not want the process to go too far before the council made a final decision. Mr. Kelly said he wanted to ensure that one could tell the difference between areas developed under the nodal development standards and a conventional commercial or residential development. If the standards were watered down, he said, "Why bother?" Mr. Kelly said that the alternative path may present Ballot Measure 37 opportunities, but it had been discussed before the measure was contemplated, and had a broader value. Mr. Klein clarified that the focus was not just the ballot measure, but a way to deal with the measure. ' Mr. Kelly asked that staff prepare a table showing what had been zoned to achieve 900 acres of regional nodal zoning. Mr. Kelly suggested that the comment related to the work plan item on special districts be modified to indicate that it referred to the County's interest in creating a public safety district. Ms. Bettman thought the special districts work plan item was too high on the priority list, given that the council did not support the formation of such districts. She asked that staff reconsider that. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said there may be a way to incorporate the Ballot Measure 37 waiver process into the code. A new set of procedures would have to be established for that process, and those procedures did not exist. He emphasized that any waiver decision would have to be made by the council. Noting that Ballot Measure 37 laid out a claims process that allowed the claimant to "hold all the marbles," Ms. Bettman suggested staff consider how effective such a process was before creating it. Mayor Piercy thanked staff and the Planning Commission for the work they had done in regard to the item. B. WORK SESSION: Transportation Funding for Pavement Preservation City Manager Taylor recalled the long history of the item and the considerable public effort that had gone into resolving the issue of funding for pavement preservation. Some progress had been made over the past three years. He noted that Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey was present for the item. Mr. Corey called the council's attention to a chart prepared for the meeting entitled City of Eugene Transportation System Funding. The chart illustrated what he termed the "three legs" of transportation funding: 1) transportation system operations and maintenance; 2) transportation system capital preserva- tion; and 3) new streets, enhanced capacity, special projects. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Corey reviewed the recent history of pavement preservation funding efforts. He dated the most recent effort to September 27, 2004, at which time the council directed staff to return with draft ordinances increasing the local gas tax and establishing a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). In October the council decided against proceeding with a TSMF and proceeded with the gas tax increase. A public hearing on the increase was held in December 2004. Mr. Corey noted the staff response to council questions, included in the agenda item summary as Attachment B. He noted that action on the proposed ordinance was tentatively scheduled for January 24. Mr. Corey called attention to a proposed amendment to the ordinance to increase the Business License Tax for motor fuel dealers by an amount to be determined. The counci[ would determine the increase in the local option gas tax. Staff continued to recommend a two-cent increase as consistent with the recommendations of the Budget Committee. The ordinance as amended would provide a partial refund on certain sales of bulk diesel fuels, which would affect over the road trucking companies located in Eugene. The ordinance change was modeled on Springfield's ordinance. Few of the miles traveled by such businesses were on city streets. Mr. Corey noted housekeeping amendments proposed for the ordinance, reflected in the draft ordinance provided to the council in the agenda item summary. Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. Corey for his comprehensive update. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor asked why people who commuted to other cities would not receive a refund on the tax. Mr. Corey said that many people, such as tourists, could make the case that they would not be traveling on city streets and could argue for a retired. He thought the case of the trucking community was unique. Mr. Corey believed that if the City did not provide refunds to the trucking industry, it would put the commu- nity at a competitive disadvantage with Springfield, which did provide such refunds in its ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked if a local vehicle registration fee could provide adequate transportation funding. Mr. Corey said yes, if the State legislature lifted its preemption. He noted that even with the adoption of an increase in the local option gas tax, the City still had a funding gap. Ms. Taylor called for a discussion of bonding to fund pavement maintenance and upgrades. She noted that she was still undecided about an increase in the gas tax. She did not support passing an ordinance that gave staff the ability to raise the tax without council action. Ms. Solomon asked staff what other strategies it had to close the funding gap given that the two-cent gas tax increase would be insufficient, and to what extent was Lane County ready to listen to Eugene again. She asked what other Lane County communities were doing. Mr. Corey suggested that as a strategy, the City continue to pursue the work it had been doing over the past five years. He personally believed that the ultimate solution was a locally controlled, fee-based system that would resemble a transportation utility fee, such as the previously considered TSMF. He said there may be other options staff had not looked at. He acknowledged that whatever was proposed, it could compete with other City priorities, and encouraged the council to take a long-term examination. In regard to the actions taken by other Lane County cities, he said that most had enacted a local option gas tax. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Solomon reminded the council that nine other cities in Oregon had transportation utility fees. She acknowledged the lack of council support previously shown for the idea, but suggested that the council discuss it again. She encouraged other councilors to work together to get the County to work with Eugene. Mr. Poling said he had informed Commissioner Bobby Green that if the County did not assist in a solution, the City was likely to revisit the TSMF. He believed the funding problem was a countywide problem, and was disappointed by the County's lack of effort in helping to solve it. He was willing to meet again with the County to discuss the issue as he thought the problem bigger than Eugene alone, and a permanent solution was needed to fund it. Mr. Poling questioned whether a two-cent gas tax increase would make much difference, given the wide variance in gasoline prices among gasoline stations located in the same area. He noted the letter to the editor written by resident Art Farley in support of the increase, which suggested that residents would pay only $20 more annually. Mr. Poling suggested that the countywide discussion also include representatives from cities outside Lane County. Ms. Bettman said she would support the gas tax if the City was using all the money available for maintenance and preservation for that purpose, but it was not. She regretted the council considered the issue in a vacuum and was not considering the issue in the context of other funding issues. She criticized the allocation of flexible dollars that could be used on preservation, such as the Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds, to projects such as the Monroe-Friendly bicycle project and the Chad Drive extension, which could be funded by other sources. Ms. Bettman thought the City was wasting money in how it prioritized what it spent its money on. Until the City consolidated and dedicated those funding sources to preservation and maintenance, she was not willing to consider an increase in the gas tax. Mr. Pryor said he was willing to seek additional funding from the County as long as the City could actually claim a need for the funds. Mr. Pryor said the maintenance needs were huge, and it was clear the City was getting to its major streets first. It was currently doing triage, and that would continue in the absence of a solution. He suggested a connection between residents and the City about the nature of their repairs and suggesting a cooperative approach. He recognized that few would want to do that, but maybe some people felt their streets were in such bad condition they were willing to fund a solution. The City could then focus what money it had on its highest priority projects. Mayor Piercy said she heard a desire to take a look at the City's transportation and maintenance priorities in a larger context. She asked how that could occur. City Manager Taylor said that he hoped the council would discuss a comprehensive approach. The gas tax increase did not preclude changing federal allocations for the region, discussions with the County, or reconsideration of the transportation mainte- nance fee. He emphasized that some progress had been made, but there was no single solution. Mr. Kelly agreed there would be value independent of the ordinance before the council in having a MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 7 Work Session broader conversation with the County and other cities. He encouraged Mayor Piercy and City Manager to Work together to accomplish that. Mr. Kelly said it would be interesting to know how much flexible funding, such as the STP-U money, was allocated annually to Eugene, and the percentage of those funds that were controlled by the Eugene City Council as opposed to being controlled by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Mr. Kelly was not comfortable with the proposed diesel exemption. He said if there was a general exemption procedure that was available to all parties, he would not object. However, he did not want to single out an industry and suggest they were more equal than other parties. Mr. Kelly indicated interest in revisiting the initial TSMF, not the modified one reviewed by the council. Ms. Solomon said the council had been given the full picture of transportation funding six years ago by former Public Works Director Christine Andersen, and the council was aware of the problems and the solutions that existed. She hoped the council would "step up the plate" and take action. Ms. Solomon asked when the council could offer the voters a chance to consider a TSMF. Mr. Klein indicated the soonest an election could be scheduled was May 2005. Selecting that date would require the City to pay for some or all of the costs of the election. If the election was scheduled for November 2005 or May 2006, the City would incur no costs. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, that a supermajority was not required to pass a TSMF. Ms. Bettman said she did not mean to imply that the City was wasting money on transportation projects or that the Chad Drive extension project was a waste of money. Her point was that the project was originally to be paid for through assessments and systems development charge because it was a new road and it increased capacity. Now flexible funding was proposed for those projects, which was not consistent with the council's highest priority of fixing roads first. Since other funding sources existed, those should be used instead of money that could be used to fix potholes. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Mr. Corey said that the Chad Drive project was identified in the Capital Improvement Program as being funded through SDCs or assessments. A portion of what would have otherwise been paid for by transportation SDC revenues would be paid by the STP-U funding. There would still be direct assessments to the property owners. Ms. Bettman said that the project qualified as a modernization project based on the matrix viewed by the MPC. When the matrix came before the MPC, she had asked if preservation projects could be included in the heading of modernization, she was told by staff the answer was yes; however, when staff returned with the project list, that was not the case, and the MPC had voted to support the criteria. Ms. Taylor thanked Ms. Solomon for giving credit to Ms. Anderson for her' emphasis on pavement preservation. She also thanked Ms. Bettman for pointing out the City needed to watch all flexible funds carefully. She said she had not given up on a countywide registration fee. She thought the City gave up too easily, and that people were aware of the need for road maintenance funding. Ms. Bettman referred to the proposed ordinance and said that it appeared the calculation was based on Springfield numbers and asked if that could be verified before the council considered the ordinance. Mr. Corey said staff had verified those numbers with the industry representatives. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall January 24, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling noted Eric Forrest's resignation from the Budget Committee and indicated his intent to offer the body a motion to appoint a replacement to the committee. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to appoint Jon Dembowski to the Budget Committee position being vacated with the resignation of Eric Forrest. Mr. Poling believed that it was best to bring Mr. Dembowski on the committee now to ensure the Budget Committee had a full complement of members prior to the start of the annual budget review. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion as she preferred to look at all the candidates' applications again before taking a vote on the topic. Ms. Bettman supported the motion since the candidate interviews had occurred fairly recently and the individual in question had received some support. She agreed that it would be better to get someone on the committee sooner rather than later. Mr. Kelly also supported the motion as he recalled Mr. Dembowski's interview and thought his experi- ence, enthusiasm, and analytical ability would benefit the committee. He agreed that now was a good time to get a new committee member in place. Mr. Poling suggested the council consider developing a process to replace early exiting committee members for the future. Ms. Taylor reiterated her interest in having the full council reconsidering all the applicants. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pyror had no items. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor recalled that during a recent council work session on the Planning Division's work plan, she had expressed interest in a tour of the Eugene sites designated for mixed-use. She said Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter had indicated willingness to conduct councilors on such a tour. She polled other councilors for their interest in a tour; a majority indicated interest. Ms. Taylor complimented an officer of the Eugene Police Department for his excellent work in keeping the peace at a counter-demonstration during a peace demonstration at the federal building. She said she did not know the officer's name. Mr. Pap6 reported that he and Mayor Piercy toured the federal court construction site earlier in the month and he recommended the tour to other councilors. He said he would be willing to help set such tours up. Mr. Papa said that he had attended the opening of the new Jordan Schnitzer Art Museum and congratu- lated the University of Oregon and Schnitzer family on the newly expanded facilities. He thanked members of the museum board, including his sister-in-law Susie Papa, board chair, for their work in realizing the expansion. Mr. Kelly also commended the remodeled art museum. He said the expansion preserved the integrity of the original structure while transforming the facility. Mr. Kelly called attention to a memorandum in the council's packet from Eugene Police Chief Robert Lehner on the issues around trespassing and panhandling. He supported the business owners' needs and rights to enforce trespassing by invited interlopers but also believed the City needed to be mindful of the State and federal constitutions as they regarded free speech. He requested a memorandum regarding recent federal or State court action on issues of free speech on public sidewalks, recalling a recent case decided by the Sixth Court of Appeals, which had ruled in United Church of Christ v. Gateway Economic Development Corp. that sidewalks in a public/private complex could be considered public sidewalks. Ms. Solomon had no items. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to be part of the recent Martin Luther King, Jr., commemorative event. She agreed that the art museum reopening was a wonderful event and suggested the economic energy generated by that facility could be extended to the arts in downtown. Mayor Piercy noted her concern about the potential for a strike by Lane Transit District drivers, and said she contacted representatives of both management and the Amalgamated Transit Union and urged them to continue negotiations. She expressed concern about the impact of a potential strike on low-income residents who were completely dependent on mass transit. City Manager Dennis Taylor said he could not imagine a finer week than last week, when the weather was beautiful, the Martin Luther King, Jr. event went well, and the art museum reopened. City Manager Taylor called attention to a Consent Calendar item regarding the Certified Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which gave the City a good report. He commended the CAFR to the community and council as a "snapshot" of the budget. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 2 Work Session City Manager Taylor reminded the council and public that this was the last week the International City Managers Association (ICMA) would solicit input from the public regarding the Eugene Police Depart- ment. He encouraged people to contact the ICMA, and provided a telephone number to the council and members of the viewing public. B. WORK SESSION: Context-Sensitive Design and Funding of Crest Drive Neighborhood Street Improvements The council was joined for the item by City Engineer Mark Schoening. Gary McNeel of the Engineering Division was also present for the item. Mr. Schoening explained why the City categorized streets, saying the street hierarchy and functional classification of streets as local, collector, and ~rterial provided a framework of a comprehensive and understandable transportation system that mai,nlains and enhances the mobility of all modes. The design standards for streets were included in the City ~Arterial and Collector Street Plan. He reviewed the history of the City's street classification effort.~vhich began in 1999. All streets were classified at the time, with the exception of the Crest Drive nei~ hborhood. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that it direct :;taft to conduct a separate study of the Crest Drive area to determine how the streets should be classified nd the design standards associated with the classifications. That study was completed in November 2003. in February 2004, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that certain sections of Cre t, Storey, Friendly, and McLean streets be designated as neighborhood collectors. At a council work ses sion in April 2004, the council directed staff to conduct a more inclusive outreach program to area resideJ tts, which occurred over the summer of 2004. Continuing, Mr. Schoening said that staff retur~ ted to the council in October 2004 with the results of the outreach. A public hearing was held, and actio~ ~ was pulled because the council majority did not appear to support the classification of any streets as neig[ borhood collectors. There was council interest in moving forward with a design for the streets, followed tly reconsideration of the classification issue. Staff had proposed a process to accomplish that direction Mr. Schoening called the council's attention to hree funding methods outlined in the agenda item summary: 1. Direct the City Manager to prepare a r ~solution to initiate a local improvement district for the design and construction of street improvements using the principles of context-sensitive design for those sections of Crest Drive, Storey B~,ulevard, and Friendly Street shown on Attachment B. 2. Appropriate $240,000 in GeneraI Funa in the FYO6 Annual Budget for the preliminary design of street improvements using the principl~ s of context-sensitive design for those sections of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly gtreet shown on Attachment B. 3. Request that the Lane County Board oj Commissioners program funds for the improvement of those sections of Crest Drive, Storey B~,ulevard, and Friendly Street shown on Attachment B in the Lane County FYO6-FY10 Capital Ir~ 9rovement Program. Mr. Schoening recommended that the council p~rsue Option 1, and direct the City Manager to prepare a MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 3 Work Session resolution to initiate a local improvement district (LID). Mr. Schoening briefly described the context-sensitive design process, which would account for such things as the rural feel of the neighborhood and the values of residents. He referred the council to Attachment A in the agenda item summary, and reviewed the six principles outlined: 1. Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals in the project. 2. Involve the public and affected parties early and continuously. 3. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to each projects needs. 4. Address all modes of travel~ transportation. 5. Apply flexibility inherent in design standards. 6. Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design. Mr. Schoening said that staff solicited issues about the design from neighbors at the last public meeting, and heard a request that the path be bark-mulched. That required staff to consider the ramifications of other requirements, such as from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for example, which required hard surfaces for paths to allow the disabled to use them. The City Code also required the adjacent property to maintain sidewalks or pathways, and there was a question of what burden would be placed on the property owner from a bark-mulched path. He anticipated more such dialogue on design issues. Mr. Schoening said that the unimproved streets in the community were not in the City's preservation and maintenance backlog; they were above and beyond that. It took considerable staff resources to maintain those roads. The LID process had been used successfully in the past, and based on the City's funding outlook, he did not anticipate another viable funding mechanism for street improvements in this area. He said the neighbors were focused and had a lot of energy around the topic, and he thought the City had an opportunity to take advantage of that energy to do something good for the neighborhood and address the safety and maintenance issues caused by the condition of the streets in the neighborhood. Mr. Schoening acknowledged Mr. McNeel's work on the topic, saying he had been involved in the process from the beginning and had done much of the "heavy lifting" needed. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Taylor said that many people in the Crest Drive area did not know of the staff recommendation that a LID be formed until the last few days. She pointed out that generally, LIDs on non-collector streets were formed with the support of more than 50 percent of the residents. There had been no request to form a district. She thought the recommendation violated the trust of the residents who wanted to be involved and were told that context-sensitive design standards would be in place before anything happened. Ms. Taylor asked if there were exceptions to the ADA requirements in the case of steep terrain, for example. Mr. Schoening said yes, as long as access was available to every one. However, he did not think any of the streets in question could not accommodate a hard surface path. Ms. Taylor asked if the ADA entered into the situation if just a pavement overlay and a few stop signs were added. Mr. Schoening said no. Ms. Taylor expressed dismay that the City was not considering another method of financing outside of those methods already in place. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Speaking to Ms. Taylor's comments, Mr. Kelly said with regard to an overlay, the City had a policy in place for years that it did not overlay unimproved streets. He did not want to set a precedent for a single street that other residents had requested for their streets and did not receive. Mr. Kelly said that he had come away from the fall meetings with the sense more was needed in regard to design before the street classifications were discussed. He was glad to know that the design would come first. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the financing element and the design process. With regard to financing, he had been confused by the agenda materials because he could not recall any use of an LID as a design funding mechanism rather than an implementation method for construction. He recalled some controversial street improvement projects such as Garden Way and Ayers Road-Delta Highway where the council had directed the design be brought back before financing and construction occurred. While those processes were "messy," he felt that good, improved streets resulted from them. He asked why a similar process could not occur for the Crest Drive area. Mr. Schoening said the initiation of a LID would allow the City to tap into its assessment fund; the LID would not actually be formed until the project was bid and a public hearing was held. He clarified that the proposal was not an LID for the design alone, but for the whole process, with a break in the middle to address the classification issue. Mr. Kelly wanted to move forward with the street design process but also wanted to know how the City had funded the Garden Way, Ayres Road and Delta Highway design processes. He did not think discussion of an LID at this point "set the fight tone." Mr. Schoening pointed out that the three streets mentioned by Mr. Kelly were designated as collectors, and the City could employ transportation system development charges as a source for the project. That might have been the way the design process was funded. Mr. Kelly asked that staff check into that. Mr. Pap6 expressed appreciation to the councilors who attended the neighborhood meetings. Most of the Crest Drive residents who contacted him wanted nothing to be done, but he did not think that was an option. It would be unfair to other neighborhoods with collector and arterial streets that were also located on the periphery of the city. He had expressed his concerns about access and safety to those who contacted him. He personally used area streets to reach facilities such as Wayne Morse Ranch, for example, and wanted good access to the site. He thought the community shared that interest. Mr. Pap~ was generally pleased with the recommended process and the proposed funding mechanism. He suggested that the council might be embarking on something that allowed it to address other areas of the community with context-sensitive designs, but the City needed to be careful about the money it spent, as he questioned whether Eugene could afford context-sensitive design in other neighborhoods. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Kelly that the City could not single out the Crest Drive area for special treatment. He reiterated that doing nothing was not a viable option. With regard to sidewalks, Mr. Pap~ asked if sidewalks could meander off the street. Mr. Schoening said yes. He said that during the charette, residents expressed interest in that approach. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the process, Mr. Schoening indicated the LID process included two public hearings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pap6 that to do nothing was not an option. The council had responsibility to provide the community with safe roads for cars to drive along and sidewalks for people to walk along. City Manager Taylor emphasized the importance of continuing the dialogue between the City and the residents. Ms. Bettman said she found the neighborhood to be organized, respectful, and informed about the issues involved. For example, the neighborhood had conducted its own transportation study. She had not heard from the neighbors that they did not want to improve the roads. She heard that they understood the need, wanted the roads to be safe, and wanted the improved road not to affect their property values. Ms. Bettman thought the residents had been reasonable and sensible about the need to pay for street improve- ments. She thought they were the optimal group of neighbors to work with. Ms. Bettman said she did not consider the neighborhood meetings that initially occurred to represent a two-way dialogue. She found the design charette chaotic and did not think it achieved the goals. She thought it was premature to ask for an LID at this point without the neighbors having any assurance of the ultimate design. She believed that if the council sought to form an LID ahead of the design agreement and the residents agreed, they would be trading away their influence. Mr. Poling asked what type of public involvement had occurred since the council's last discussion on the topic. Mr. Schoening said the only public outreach that occurred was notice of the City Manger's decision to delay the decision in November 2004. Neighbors were notified of this meeting and the availability of related materials on the City's Web site last week. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Schoening that if the proposed resolution passed, the City would be borrowing money from the Assessment Fund to start the design process; those residents involved in the LID would see no assessments until the completion of construction. Mr. Poling referred to Option 3, and asked what effect soliciting funding from the County would have on the City's future efforts to secure Road Fund money for preservation and maintenance. Mr. Schoening believed it would send a mixed message to the Board of County Commissioners. In this case, moderniza- tion funds would be involved rather than preservation and maintenance funds. Mr. Poling wanted to know the answers to the questions posed by Mr. Kelly regarding other City road projects. Mayor Piercy asked the manager for suggestions on how to proceed. City Manager Taylor supported the staff recommendation. He said that the City did not have a ready source of funds outside the Assessment Fund to underwrite the design process. He noted that the improvements on Garden Way and Ayres Road were largely funded by assessments. Mayor Piercy called on the council for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Taylor recalled the reopening of Broadway was paid for by County Road Funds. Ms. Taylor emphasized that the design process should come before any public hearing on an LID. She thought that some people would be happy to pay for the design if it was what they wanted while others did MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 6 Work Session not believe they could afford to pay for the improvements at all. Then the council would be in the position to discuss next steps. Ms. Bettman thought it appropriate to lobby the County for funds because the streets in question abutted Lane County, and they were absorbing traffic with an origin in the county. She thought the County should have an interest in the issue. Ms. Bettman questioned why the money for the design work could not be borrowed from another fund. After staff developed a mutually acceptable design, it could proceed with the LID and pay back the fund. She did not think there was an urgency to proceed. She also wanted to know the answers to Mr. Kelly's questions, and asked for staff feedback on the feasibility of her suggestion. Although Mr. Kelly agreed there was not any urgency to proceed, he wanted to keep the process moving. Mr. Kelly thought in a better environment, the LID could be formed now, but given the trust issues that existed between the neighborhood and City, he preferred not to act at this time. However, that did not mean the City could not find some way to do the needed design. Mr. Kelly asked that staff provide the council with some sense of how it arrived at the $240,000 estimate. While he acknowledged that context-sensitive design was a process, he thought it important for the council to create boundaries for the process. Mr. Kelly said that neighbors "felt marginalized" when they suggested such things as mulched bark paths and were told that was not possible. The council could identify those elements that could be traded off. He suggested that perhaps the money could be spent in phases, and each phase would build more trust with the neighborhood. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, suggesting that consideration of the resolution be postponed at this time. He suggested the potential the City could "kick start" the process using General Fund money. He said the process could be considered a pilot for a citywide approach. City Manager Taylor said that staff had originally envisioned that it would borrow the money for the design until the process was farther along and a decision about the designation had been made. That would allow different options for spreading the cost and would affect what sources of funds that could be used. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said the issue was whether the City Council could spend money and then later roll the money that had been spent into an LID. He said staff was seeking an answer to that question from legal counsel. Mr. Pap6 indicated he had no problem with "seeding" the design process from either General Fund dollars or from County Road Funds if they became available. Mr. Poling referred to Option 2, which called for the use of General Fund dollars, and asked if the council could borrow up to $240,000 from that source to begin the design process and then pay it back once the LID was formed and the money collected. City Manager Taylor again deferred the question to legal counsel. He said that was different than Option 2, which was to appropriate the money from the General Fund rather than borrow it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Bettman for the third round of comments. Ms. Bettman said the key to success would be the design process. Given the cost of the project, it was important to "start on the right foot" and create a process that worked for both the area in question and for the city as a whole as the council would be setting a precedent. She recommended that the City consider someone like Dan Burden of Walkable Communities, Inc., to facilitate the process. Mayor Piercy said it appeared councilors had many concerns and questions that needed to be addressed. She emphasized the need for the City to be conscious about communicating with the neighborhood in question on a regular basis so that residents felt they got information in a timely way and understood what was happening. C. WORK SESSION: FY2005-2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Project List The item was a continuation of a previous discussion that occurred at the council's December 8, 2004, work session. The motions below were considered at that time until the item was tabled for later discussion: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the Eugene 's project list in the drafi fiscal year (FY) 2005-2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the Chad Drive project from the Met- ropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute a motion that the City of Eugene resubmit all of the City's projects that were competing for Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) money under a category of maintenance and preservation so that the City could still compete for this money but it would be allocated to maintenance and preservation projects. Mr. Schoening reviewed the process used by the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to allocate State and federal transportation funding. He said that.prior to 2002, the MPO received federal STP funds that were allocated on the basis of population. At that time, Eugene would exchange its funding allocation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in return for State funding, which gave Eugene greater flexibility as to the use of the dollars. For example, such funds had underwrit- ten the cost of the Polk Street neighborhood traffic calming project. However, Mr. Schoening said, after the 2000 census the metropolitan population exceeded 200,000 and the area was designated a transporta- tion management area (TMA), which brought in more funds but changed the allocation process. Federal regulations required the MPO to develop an allocation process on a competitive project-by-project basis. The MPO received $2.5 million annually, and the projects were programmed in a three-year cycle through the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). Continuing, Mr. Schoening said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), acting through the MPO, had the authority to allocate the STP funds. Voting members included Lane County, Lane Transit District, Springfield, Eugene, Coburg, and ODOT. All jurisdictions except Coburg and ODOT had two voting representatives; those entities had one representative. In order for action items to be passed by the MPC, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 8 Work Session there must be at least one affirmative vote from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Mr. Schoening reported that the FY 2004-2006 MTIP was the first to employ the new allocation process. The Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), a staff group that reflected the make-up of the MPC, developed the categories of projects, criteria, and scoring process for the MTIP. The MPC had considered that work at its August 14, 2003, meeting. At that time, the MPC approved four categories of funding and funding splits: 1) preservation (50 percent), 2) modernization (20 percent), 3) planning and project development (20 percent), and 4) transportation demand management (TDM) (10 percent). The MPC also approved the criteria to be used to score projects in the categories. The MPC subsequently reviewed the projects submitted by the jurisdictions for funding, and the City secured money for the cost of its participation in regional transportation planning and modernization dollars for the Chad Drive extension and the Monroe-Friendly bikeway. Mr. Schoening said that after the MPC adopted the criteria in September 2003, the City Council passed a motion directing that staff work with the Lane Council of Governments and the MPC to modify the STP-U evaluation criteria so that individual jurisdictions could prioritize the funding of operations, maintenance, and preservation of the road system. On October 9, 2003, the MPC considered a motion made by Ms. Bettman to combine the funding for the modernization and preservation categories for STP-U fund allocations and, within the new combined category, to allow jurisdictions to withdraw or resubmit project applications. That motion failed. Mr. Schoening said the MPC then adopted the 2004-2006 MTIP. Mr. Schoening said the FY2005-2007 MTIP included no new allocation of federal funds. He said the project list included with the agenda item summary was annotated to show the source of the Eugene projects. The two new projects for Eugene were the realignment of Airport Road and the Patterson Street underpass. Mr. Schoening said the council held a work session on the MTIP on December 8 during which the tabled motions were discussed. The MPC met on December 9 to consider the FY2005-2007 MTIP, but ran out of time before it could do so, and as a consequence met again on December 30. The MPC agreed that the individual elected bodies could continue to offer comtnent. Mr. Schoening noted that Paul Thompson and Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments were present for the item to answer questions. Ms. Bettman referred the council to the last tabled motion and asked to be allowed to clarify the intent of the motion by changing the wording. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue and achieve amendments to the fund allocation process for the federal Surface Transportation Program (and any other source of flexible funding) by working with the TPC, MPC/MPO, and Eugene's representatives on the MPC/MPO in order that Eugene's allocation will be dedicated to fund maintenance and preservation of the existing road and off-street bike- way system until such time that the backlog of maintenance and preservation is elimi- nated, unless an exception is directed by the City Council. Ms. Bettman said she had been working for a long time to allocate the dollars in question to preservation and maintenance. However, her efforts had not been successful. She believed that the City's road MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 9 Work Session maintenance and preservation budget deficit was attributable to the lack of political will over the past few decades to prioritize those items. Decisions had been made to fund new projects at the expense of maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman asserted that of the $185 million allocated through the MTIP, only $2.2 million was flexible funding available to Eugene. She said that reallocating those funds would not stop any new road projects from going forward given the small amount involved. She said the City was forced to go to its voters for money because of priority and funding decisions made by the MPC. Ms. Bettman maintained that historically, Eugene representatives "had not had a say" at the MPC. Ms. Bettman noted that the Springfield City Council reviewed that city's project list in light of that community's priorities. She thought it was Eugene's fiscal responsibility to do the same thing. With regard to the evaluation matrix adopted by the MPC, Ms. Bettman maintained that the project list could be adjusted based on the Eugene council's priorities. She noted that Coburg was not subjected to the criteria and received STP-U funding without going through the matrix evaluation process. She believed there were exceptions and considerable discretion in the process. She wanted to leverage that discretion so the Eugene council could tell its taxpayers it was spending as much as possible on road maintenance and preservation. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Bettman if both of Eugene's representatives to the MPC supported her motion to change the criteria and if she knew why representatives of other jurisdictions did not support it. Ms. Bettman said former Mayor Jim Torrey and Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green had supported her motion. She had offered the body a more specific motion to allow Eugene to recover its STP-U allocation, but the motion failed to receive a second. Mr. Kelly said he asked the question because he wondered if, more than a year later, the City of Eugene could have a more productive discussion with the MPC on the topic. As he interpreted the motion, it was rather nuanced, and directed staff to assist the council in adjusting some of the rules so that if Eugene chose, it could use more of the money for maintenance and preservation projects within its own jurisdic- tion. He supported the motion so the City could go to MPC in a cooperative spirit and advocate for the use of the funds for that purpose. Speaking to the Chad Drive project, Mr. Kelly said that he believed it was a good project and his motion to de-fund the project was a vote against the project funding rather than the project itself. He supported the use of assessments and system development charges (SDCs) to underwrite those costs. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the motion. Mr. Pap6 said the premise and goals of the motion were lofty and worthwhile, but the "devil was in the details." He pointed out that the City was almost through fiscal year 2005, and asked how the motion impacted projects scheduled for construction. Ms. Bettman said her motion represented policy direction to change the matrix so that in the future Eugene had the ability to prioritize its flexible funding for maintenance and preservation. She wanted to reprogram the funding so that the Chad Drive project was supported by assessments and SDCs, and the Monroe-Friendly bikeway project, which she did not think was a bikeway project at all, would bi deleted entirely. The STP~U money allocated to those projects transferred to operations, maintenance, and preservation. Two other Eugene projects that did not make the list were high on the City's preservation priority list and could be elevated. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Schoening said of the projects prioritized for preservation, the projects mentioned by Ms. Bettman had scored below other projects not funded. If a straight order was followed, the first project under the cut line was a City of Springfield project. Referring to the motion, Mr. Schoening clarified that there was no "Eugene allocation" for projects. Allocations were made on a project-by-project basis. The funding was not specific to a jurisdiction. City Manager Taylor said if the motion was adopted, the change it called for would not be within his purview to accomplish. When the region became a TMA, it moved from an allocation system to one based on regional priorities, and those regional priorities were determined by the MPC. The City's representatives, Mr. Kelly and Mayor Piercy, could allocate for a change in the formula based on jurisdiction population, but that element is not in place now. He reiterated that the City's previous attempts to secure the change had been unsuccessful. Mr. Pap6 likened the federal allocation process to the ODOT allocation process, which was directed regionally. He determined from Mr. Schoening that if the City dropped the projects now being funded, the dollars could go to a project in Springfield or Coburg. Speaking to the comments of City Manager Taylor, Mr. Thompson clarified that the allocation process cannot be based on sub-allocations based on population or other proportionate means to jurisdictions. Federal regulations made it clear the allocations must be based on criteria to specific projects with specific allocations of funds. The money was not sub-allocated to jurisdictions to do with what they wished. Ms. Solomon said she appreciated what Ms. Bettman was attempting to do with regard to addressing the backlog of City preservation projects, but the motion felt like "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." She did not want to give up the money for projects outside Eugene's jurisdiction. Mr. Poling indicated his questions were answered by staff. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that he did not want to see the money returned to the MPC for reallocation to non-Eugene projects. He said that the council could pursue some of the concepts in Ms. Bettman's motion for future MTIPs, but at this point he thought the City was too far along in the process to give up the money allocated to Eugene projects. Mr. Kelly said Ms. Bettman's motion merely spoke to the need for a change in the funding formula for the future. It did not change anything in the current MTIP. It merely asked staff to work with the MPC to change the funding formula. If the council wanted to achieve its street preservation goals in the long-mn, it should support the motion. Mr. Kelly said he did not know all the federal regulations intimately, but he was unconvinced that the federal allocation formula was as precise as had been stated to the council by staff. He wanted to see "chapter and verse" of the regulations. He believed other qualitative factors should not be ignored. Mr. Schwetz said the MPC established the percentages for the four categories, and it could change those percentage targets and, if it wished, place 100 percent toward preservation or modernization. However, the MPC could not develop a process that resulted in the suballocation of funds to a jurisdiction for its subsequent decision and use. Mr. Kelly said the motion, if it passed, was forward-looking and would not take away money from Eugene MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 11 Work Session projects. He suggested Ms. Bettman revise the motion to read "so that Eugene could better compete for maintenance and preservation projects..." Ms. Bettman declined to accept the amendment because she took the text directly from the MTIP, which spoke of allocations throughout the document. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the source of the motion's text and if it discussed allocations to specific jurisdictions, Mr. Thompson said that the STP-U funds allocated by the MPO could be allocated to projects, but not to jurisdictions. Thus, the use of the word "allocation" was correct, but the issue was allocating funds to specific projects or programs rather than to jurisdictions to use as they wish. Ms. Bettman indicated willingness to modify the motion to read "Eugene's project allocation would be dedicated..." Ms. Bettman believed that each jurisdiction should have the ability to compete for money to fund their priorities. That was why she asked the MPC to change the criteria. That would have given all jurisdic- tions the opportunity to do what Eugene wanted to do, but did not force them to do so. Her motions were voted down. She interpreted that as meaning that Springfield and Lane County were telling Eugene what it could spend money on. As the funding decisions were made at the MPC, if the next project on the list was a Springfield project, it was up to the MPC to create equity, or the City could negotiate with the MPC to fund the next preservation project on the list instead of a new capacity project. She believed the MPC could do so. She said that MPC made the rules, and could change them. Ms. Bettman said that Eugene's population represented two-thirds of the metropolitan area, and while she was not arguing for two-thirds of the funding available, she wanted what was available for maintenance and preservation in Eugene. Mr. Pap6 asked if passage of the motion would have an impact on the FY05-06 allocations. Mr. Schoening said no, not if he understood Ms. Bettman's intent as interpreted by Mr. Kelly. It would have an impact on the next federal fund allocation. Mr. Pap6 said he continued to be confused about what regulations were imposed on the region by the federal government and what MPC rules could be changed to facilitate Ms. Bettman's intent. Mr. Thompson said the MPC could change its funding targets across four categories. Within those guidelines the MPC developed, funds must be allocated to projects rather than to jurisdictions. Projects must meet other guidelines; for example, the federal government precluded the use of the funds for local streets, and they could be used for preservation, not maintenance. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Thompson confirmed that the category target percentages, if changed, would be changed for all jurisdictions. Mr. Pap6 asked if Eugene could seek a higher percentage for preservation projects with the understanding that the funding was mostly for Eugene projects. Mr. Thompson said that could be accomplished if the MPC members chose to do so. Mr. Papd suggested it would be more appropriate to ask the City's MPC representatives to seek the change, as opposed to the City Manager. Ms. Bettman disagreed, saying it was a policy issue. It would require the City Manager and City staff on the TPC as well as the City's MPC representatives to make the change. Ms. Solomon asked if it was possible that other preservation projects for other jurisdictions would compete for the money before Eugene. City Manager Taylor said yes, but pointed out that Eugene had MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 12 Work Session many such preservation projects while some of the other jurisdictions did not. He said the issue the MPC would consider was whether it was a good regional policy to put a greater percentage of STP-U funds into pavement preservation. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the complexity of the issues involved. She did not think the councilors could "all come up to speed" on the MPC process at one work session. Mr. Pryor interpreted the motion to mean the City was asking rather than telling the MPC to modify its allocation process in order to achieve some of Eugene's policy goals. He said that it was possible the MPC would say no, or it could say yes, but the City might not see a dollar more of the money. The money could go instead to regional preservation projects. Ms. Taylor believed that Eugene should be able to fund its preservation priorities and would be able to do so better if Ms. Bettman's motion passed. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the word "maintenance" be removed from the motion since maintenance projects were not eligible for the STP-U funding. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman shared the application used by jurisdictions for projects competing for the funds, noting that the formula used weighed the components of the projects for evaluation. She thought it was merely a matter of changing the weighting system to allow Eugene to compete successfully with preservation projects. She questioned staff's assertions that operations could not be funded by the federal dollars available, as it was her opinion that allocations for planning were for operations. Mr. Schwetz said the MPC set targets for modernization, preservation, planning, and TDM. To accom- plish what Ms. Bettman desired, the City would have to work with the MPC to change the percentage allocation for the funding targets so that more money was spent on preservation in the future. Mr. Schoening interpreted the motion as asking the MPC to mix all the available funding so that Springfield's modernization projects could compete against Eugene's preservation project using a weighted scoring system. City Attorney Glenn Klein interpreted the motion as directing the manager and the City's MPC represen- tatives to determine how Eugene could obtain more federal funds for preservation, and to go to the MPC and advocate for that. Ms. Solomon asked if the passage of the motion would be at the expense of modernization and TDM. Ms. Bettman believed the answer to that question depended on one's perception. She believed the motion merely allowed the City to achieve its stated priorities. City Manger Taylor clarified that if the motion passed and the City was successful in getting the change, a greater proportion of STP-U funds would be available for preservation projects. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Klein asked the council to confirm that no one objected to the vote as the final vote on the main motion. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 13 Work Session in cooperation with council representatives of the MPC/MPO, to amend the fiscal year 2005-07 MTIP to fund the Chad Drive extension, Roose- velt extension Terry to Royal exclusively with system development charges and assessments, and to reprogram all STP-U funding in the Monroe-Friendly bikeway and the Chad Drive extension to the highest priority road or bikeway preservation projects. After which the City Manager will return to the City Council for approval of the amended FY05-07 MTIP. Ms. Bettman said she included the Roosevelt extension in the motion because of her concerns about its source of funding. She did not know where the rest of the projected funding was to come from, so she added it to the motion. Regarding the Monroe-Friendly bikeway project, she interpreted the work as being "basically signage." She did not think it was the same priority as some preservation projects and objected to using the money for the project. She maintained that the Chad Drive extension could be funded by SDCs and assessments. She found her position consistent with the City's priorities regarding both TransPlan and the maintenance of existing road system. Mr. Poling said that the money for Chad Drive would go back to the regional pot and might not be available to Eugene. The council approved the project in a variety of venues. It coincided with a County project to upgrade Game Farm Road. The extension would take traffic off local streets and extend the lives of those roads. He felt it important to keep the project alive. Mr. Kelly agreed about the value of the Chad Drive project, but the motion did not delete the project, it changed how it was paid for. For that reason, he could support it. Mr. Pap6 thought the last motion was government at its best, a policy-setting exercise, while he likened the motion before the council to switching courses on a marathon runner. Ms. Ortiz indicated she was unprepared to take action at this time and would move to table the motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to table the motion. The mo- tion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 14 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall January 26, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Adaptive Recreation City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Sue Harnly, Recreation Manager, and Ren~e Grube, Recreation Services Director for the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. He said this work session was an opportunity for Ms. Harnly and Ms. Grube to explain the City of Eugene's Adaptive Recreation Services. Ms. Harnly began by introducing the program supervisors for Adaptive Recreation Services, Molly Elliott and Patty Prather. She explained that the City was the primary provider of such recreation services and sought to encourage people with disabilities to lead active lives. She said the program had been formerly called Specialized Recreation Services, but had been renamed Adaptive Recreation Services to reflect the current feeling that "special" was a separation with somewhat negative connotations. Ms. Harnly outlined the core service areas of the program, as follows: 1) Program services, which provide a full spectrum of programs to a wide range of people, 100 different programs in 2004 that served over 800 people 2) Resource and referral services, which include fielding calls, networking, and providing informa- tion 3) Inclusion services, in that all people are entitled, regardless of ability, to participate in activities of their choice and the service facilitates this participation 4) The volunteer program, an integral element of the programs as they extend resources and help to offer quality programs. Volunteers come from the University of Oregon, Lane Community Col- lege, and some from community service and a substance abuse recovery program, among others. Partnerships are also developed with other agencies in the community. 5) Community education and networking, a constant for adaptive recreation staff. Staff often is at the table when issues about people with disabilities are discussed. Ms. Hamly said approximately 17 percent of the population of the City of Eugene have a disability of one sort or another, as Eugene is a livable city for people with disabilities. She shared several stories of people whose lives had benefited from Adaptive Recreation Services. In closing, Ms. Hamly thanked the council and staff for their support and, in particular, Ms. Elliott and Ms. Prather for their work for the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap6 emphasized that there was no question in his mind that these programs should be provided. He said the question, instead, was whether the resources were available to continue such programs. He pointed out that the next item on the agenda had to do with deficiencies in the City's fire service that were due to necessary budget choices. He commended the Adaptive Recreation Services but underscored that they were expensive programs. He asked staff how such programs would continue to be funded into the future. Ms. Grube responded that the program was supported by the General Fund. Participants did not tend to have a great deal of discretionary income. She stressed the value of the program in helping to keep people socialized and in their homes. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Harnly stated that the program received $500,000 from the General Fund and 20 percent of the cost was paid through fees. Mr. Pap6 commented that he appreciated the discussion on community partners. He asked if the United Way could help fund the programs. Ms. Grube responded that the program partnered with the United Way to provide some of the programs, but that United Way had not been asked to help pay for the City's adaptive recreation activities. Mr. Pap6 suggested quantifying the volunteer hours and delineating further partnerships to help the Budget Committee to understand how the $500,000 was being spent. Ms. Ortiz echoed Mr. Papa's request for more information regarding volunteer hours. She asked if there was a person dedicated to looking for other funding sources. Ms. Grube replied that there was not. Ms. Harnly stated, in response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, that community recreation was not able to access third-party reimbursement, e.g. insurance benefits, though staff did pursue smaller grants and funding mechanisms for programs. She noted one grant from Lane County that had run a specific program and only that program. Ms. Grube added that the City had partnered with the Lane Transit District (LTD) on a grant to acquire a vehicle for recreation services. Mr. Kelly cited the oft-repeated adage that a society is judged by how it cares for those who are least able to care for themselves. He felt adaptive recreation was a clear example of this. He averred it was a critical service and that the City of Eugene provided it very well. He noted that when cutting other recreational services during a previous budget cycle, adaptive recreation services had not been cut because it had been determined there were no comparable providers in the private sector that could take over. He asked if there were any other significant providers at this point. Ms. Haimly said there were none. Ms. Bettman valued the service adaptive recreation staff provided. She thanked staff for its dedication. She commented that people with family members with disabilities often had extraordinary expenses and opined the subsidy was "worth it." Mr. Pryor called adaptive recreation the "poor step-child even in the recreation world." He commented that corporations did not like to support such services and agencies such as United Way were already spread thin. He said it was something that one should "step up to the plate" and find the money to do as it was not so much a recreation service as it was community development. He observed that, for a lot of children, this was how they learned to live and that it helped them to become a much more functional group of people. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the presentation and for the work the staff did. She said the council should be conscious of its role in the community and that money for human services should not be thought of as a contribution. She averred that services such as adaptive recreation services were a piece of Eugene's livability and tourism; Eugene drew people to it because it was this kind of city.' City Manager Taylor acknowledged that the City was meeting a need, but said there was more need than the City could meet. He hoped the presentation would help provide more visibility for the programs to both potential program users and to the council. He noted that Lane County Senior and Disabled Services was falling victim to the State budget shortfalls. He anticipated this would increase the need for some of the adaptive recreation services. Mr. Poling, noting the length of time the recreation staff members had worked for the City, commented that one needed to remember that the City had valued employees who put in much of their life in this work. He said when the City had a person in a specific department for a long time it should prepare for the person's departure so that the institutional memory would not be lost. Mr. Pap6 concurred. Mr. Pap6 acknowledged that United Way had more programs to fund than funds to spend. He remarked that it was not so much whether the City should continue these services, but rather how such services could be continued. Ms. Harnly remarked, in closing, that when staff did fundraising, people saw recreation services as the City of Eugene and did not perceive a great need on the part of the City for more money. B. WORK SESSION: Fire and Emergency Medical Service Standards of Response Coverage City Manager Taylor recalled that thc City had undergone a process as part of thc Public Works Department accreditation. Thc results were so valuable in terms of service provision that thc City was now engaged in a similar process with thc Fire and Emergency Medical Services (Fire/EMS). Hc introduced Fire Chief Tom Tallon and asked him to speak to the standards of coverage. Chief Tallon said the standards of coverage had been presented in 2003 as a way a community could measure existing risk and then plan to cover that risk and also as a piece toward thc larger goal of getting national accreditation. He noted that out of several thousand fire departments, less than 200 nationwide had attained accreditation, a national standard supported by the International City Managers Association (ICMA), International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Insurance Service Office (ISO). He said thc accreditation helped thc ISO to determine local insurance rates. Hc stated that Chief Ruth Obadal had bccn working on this process and asked her to speak about it. Chief Obadal said Fire/EMS was currently considered an applicant City. This consisted of a very thorough self-analysis which, after a year, was now completed. She stated that thc Standards of Cover document was required to bc submitted along with the department's Strategic Plan. She explained that the next step consisted of an assignment of a pccr review panel to conduct a site visit. She shared thc goal of Eugene Fire/EMS, which was to complete thc process before summer. Chief Obadal discussed thc Eugene Fire & EMS Department Standards of Coverage, December, 2004, noting that the document was an updated version of the one presented to thc council in 2003. She reported that response time goals were spelled out in Section 5. She said the document indicated what level of service the community could expect. She indicated that should current goals be unattainable, the department would not reach accreditation. She stated Section 12 included recommendations to improve MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2005 Page 3 Work Session the level of service and that these remain unchanged from the earlier version. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for the comprehensive and comprehensible documents. She asked if whether the council voted to approve the plan or voted to accept the plan would make a difference in the accreditation process. City Manager Taylor responded that it did not. Chief Tallon clarified that if the council accepted the document, it would then be acknowledging that the Fire Department was using this process to measure risk and making recommendations on how to cover that risk. Ms. Bettman said that response time was a key issue for her. She cited two instances in her experience as a registered nurse wherein response time had made a tremendous difference in the outcome for a patient. She objected to the fact that the goals for response time were greater than the need. She observed that the national standard was a four-minute response, but all incidents in Eugene were averaging at least nine minutes for a response. She pointed out that last year's goal was a six-and-a-half minute response time. Mr. Kelly also complimented the document, calling it detailed. He would support a motion to accept the document. He felt uneasy about ~upporting a motion to approve the document given the changed goals for response time. He thought standards were being relaxed as last year the goal had been a six-and-a-half minute response time 90 percent of the time and now the goal had been changed to a seven-minute response time 80 percent of the time. He asked why the response time goals had been changed. Responding to Mr. Kelly, Chief Obadal stated that the former goals could not be met. She said it had been hoped this could be improved operationally and the department had not been able to do so. She acknowledged the goals had been relaxed but reiterated that it was because the goals need to be attainable. She related that the Accreditation Commission required the department to look at the both the depart- ment's response and the call-in response times. She said when all the components were added up it looked like a long time. In response to another question from Mr. Kelly, Chief Obadal stated that the change in the percentage of time response times were achieved had been a result of understanding what different standards were across the country and also because this was the percentage that the department could achieve. She noted that she had seen, in her peer review capacity, departments with a goal to achieve a good response time 70 percent of the time. Chief Tallon added that the change in response time goals had largely been due to Chief Obadal's work as an assessor with other departments and her understanding of the requirements for accreditation. He thought the factor that was most telling for the decision-makers was the response reliability as a city. He cited pages 71 and 72 which provided three years of data per station. He said, since 1991, each year the response reliability had gone down. He called attention, in particular, to the Valley River area which had lost an engine company due to funding issues. He underscored that response time had increased due to the growth of the community, an increase in the frequency of incidents, and the spread of population into the Santa Clara area. As a point of information, he stated that there were very few, if any, departments in the United States that had a response time of four minutes 90 percent of the time, though the national standard suggested that response time. Mr. Papa lauded the document. He noted that on page 3 it said Eugene had received a Class II fire suppression rating. He asked what a Class I rating would be. Chief Tallon responded that this was the ISO rating upon which homeowners and business insurance rates were partially based. He said, nation- wide, he thought there were less than ten Class I fire departments and less than 90 that were Class II. He stated that fire departments were proud to be rated Class II and that some paint it on the sides of their fire trucks. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pap~ asked the City Manager to comment on the Valley River Fire Station and whether funding would be allocated to restore the engine company. City Manager Taylor responded that it would be addressed in the Budget Committee process. He affirmed that it was part of the department's strategy to improve the level of service. Mr. Papd called the council's attention to page 82, which discussed the Valley River Station. Mr. Pap~ asked if the Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighters (ARFF) was included in the graphs on pages 28 and 29. Chief Obadal affirmed that ARFF was included. In response to a question from Mr. Papb, she stated that the numbers could be separated out. In response to another question from Mr. Papfi, Chief Obadal explained that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required the ARFF firefighters to remain at the airport when it is open for commercial flights and did not allow them to supplement other fire resources. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for the document. She asked if it included all levels of transport. Chief Obadal replied that it only included Code 3 transports. Chief Tallon stated, in response to another question from Ms. Ortiz, that different jurisdictions had different levels of EMS, but they could all apply for accreditation. He clarified that a jurisdiction either contracted with a transport service or had its own ambulances, but the call response time was the same. Ms. Taylor was alarmed by the suggestion that goals should be revised. She acknowledged that demand had exceeded resources and, as such, would accept the report but would not support a motion to approve it. She averred that City policies exacerbated the problem by encouraging sprawl and opined that this contributed to the slower response time. Chief Tallon reiterated that accepting the document would meet the intent of the application. Ms. Bettman indicated she would amend the motion, when it was placed on the table, so that it indicated the council "acknowledged receipt of the report" rather than "accepted it." She did not wish to allow anyone to infer that the City Council embraced these goals. She did not blame the department and, in fact, thought the department was excellent. She called it a City Council and organizational issue of resources. She felt the organization had campaigned relentlessly for road maintenance funds and asked why there was not a similar relentless advocacy for improved response times. She supported most of the recommen- dations in the document. She declared she would be looking for funding mechanisms to improve funding for the department and to restore the engine company to Station 9 in the Valley River area. Ms. Bettman pointed out that there were now goals for ambulance transport without the call processing time that seemed long, such as ten minutes 85 percent of the time in Zone 1 and 20 minutes 85 percent of the time in Zone 2. She felt those goals needed revision. Chief Obadal responded that those times and goals were set by Lane County and not the Eugene Fire/EMS Department. Mr. Kelly clarified that the all incident goals and the structure fire goals were set by the City. He commented that he could not underscore enough that the department was great. He acknowledged there were not enough resources. He supported Ms. Bettman's language that indicated acknowledgement of receipt of the document. Mr. Papb recommended that the City Council look at the four-minute response time at its annual goal setting meeting, currently set for late February. He observed that some of the response time had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2005 Page 5 Work Session slowed by traffic calming and asked if there were some modes of traffic calming that were better for response time than others. Chief Obadal responded that traffic calming generally meant traffic slowing. She said she worked closely with transportation planners to try to minimize the impact on emergency response. She noted that speed humps created more of an obstacle than some other modes of traffic calming. Mr. Pap~, noting the CMS reimbursement, asked if this was an issue to take up with when lobbying Congress with the United Front lobbying group. Chief Tallon recommended that they lobby to change the fee regulation. Mr. Pap~ said he would bring this before the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as a first step. Mr. Poling ascertained that a change in the wording would not affect the accreditation process. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to acknowledge receipt of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department updated Standards of Response Coverage. Ms. Ortiz related that she had done "ridealongs" with paramedics. She said four minutes was an impossible goal. She encouraged councilors to take a "ridealong." Ms. Bettman shared her aggravation regarding the people who do not pull over when ambulances or fire engines were passing. Mr. Poling commented that this was not a problem only for the City of Eugene. He agreed that people needed to get out of the way of emergency vehicles. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 2005 Page 6 Work Session M I N U T E S ATTACHMENT D Eugene City Council Process Session Classroom 2, Fire/EMS/Police Training Facility 1705 West 2nd Avenue February 8, 2005 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the City Council process session to order. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session 1) Introduction/Icebreaker Facilitators Greta Utecht and Alicia Hayes introduced themselves to the council. Ms. Utecht asked councilors to part'icipate in a short exercise as an icebreaker. She instructed the councilors to imagine they were, over the course of a dinner with friends ten years from the present, asked to share what one thing most symbolized their fulfilled public aspirations as a policy decision maker. Ms. Hayes cited, as an example, her service on the Human Rights Commission (HRC), which she had undertaken primarily to lobby for curb cuts in the Harlow neighborhood. She said now there were curb cuts from one end of the City to the other and staff had improved upon the design. Ms. Utecht shared her experience working in the division that licensed local businesses, including garbage haulers. She related that, at the time, there was little motivation to recycle, but now thanks to her efforts and the efforts of others, all garbage haulers provide recycling services. Ms. Ortiz said ten years from now she still wanted to work as an emergency room registered nurse, but that in ten years the hospital and all City services would reflect every facet of society, every color, and staff would be bilingual. Council, Public, and Govermnent Affairs Manager Mary Walston stated that she was on the Board of Directors for Greenhill Humane Society. She said they were working on a low-cost spay and neuter clinic and she hoped that in ten years there would be a reduction in unwanted animals as a result. Mr. Pryor aspired to foster a high level of trust in City government and in the functionality of the City. Mr. Poling commented that he shared Mr. Pryor's aspiration, as did all of the councilors. He shared his vision of a 20-year supply of usable land and a computerized system that tracked it, in order to avoid the cost of a land inventory. Mr. Kelly said he would want to leave behind a vibrant, 24-hour downtown, and an increase in affordable MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 1 Process Session housing. He also wanted population growth to be absorbed without expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Pap6 also shared having a vibrant downtown as a goal. He added that he wanted a new moderu hospital to be built south of the river, the federal courthouse to be completed, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) property to be redeveloped, and the issues involving the River Road/Santa Clara neighborhood to be resolved. City Manager Dennis Taylor said in ten years he would be celebrating his 40th wedding anniversary in his new accessible home in the downtown area where he was able to shop for all of his needs and added that when he looked around, he saw people of all ages enjoying the many amenities the downtown had to offer. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Bettman wished to leave behind a fixed rail trolley system that connected the new hospital, the University neighborhood, the federal courthouse, and a new City Hall that featured separate offices for each city councilor. Ms. Solomon foresaw herself having dinner riverside on a concrete patio that was part of a mixed-use development overlooking the hospital and the river. Ms. Taylor wanted her legacy to be that all of the Amazon headwaters land was preserved as open space, including the Beverly property. Council Coordinator Lynda Rose hoped the City would become one of the most technologically advanced cities for disseminating information. She added that she would also love to live downtown. Mr. Poling remarked that any one of the councilors could pick any number of the different visions set forth. Mayor Piercy said she wanted the downtown to be revitalized and the City to be known as a regional arts center and a place that supported sustainable business practices. She wanted the citizens to feel great about Eugene as a community. 2) Review Operating Agreements/Shared Expectations Ms. Hayes divided the council into three small groups, with one new member in each group. Ms. Utecht noted that some discussion had already occurred via email. Mr. Kelly commented that six out of nine of the elected officials present "sweated a long time" to adopt operating agreements. He wondered if this review could be done more efficiently by allowing the three new members to address the other six with their questions and comments regarding the agreements. Ms. Hayes said the small group portion would not take a long time. She felt the one-on-one format would allow people to ask all of their questions. She recognized the desire to remain in a larger group, but wished to create a format in which no one would hold back their questions. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly. The councilors and mayor spent ten minutes discussing the operating agreements in groups of three. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 2 Process Session Ms. Utecht listed the topics of concern that came out of the email communications between councilors and staff, as follows: · Section 9.03 of the operating agreements; · Microphone time; · Motions to reconsider; · Parking (specific to Ms. Bettman). Ms. Walston explained that she had included Section 9.03: Representing City Positions and Personal Positions, on the back of the draft language for Section 9.03 for comparison purposes. She said she listened to the tape of the discussion on the issue and extrapolated the main points, from which she crafted the draft language. Mr. Kelly felt the draft language captured the council's intent, but wished Section 9.03 had been written more succinctly. He liked that it had been divided into three different paragraphs as there had been three separate concerns that needed to be addressed. His only concern lay in the paragraph regarding local intergovermnental bodies or advisory groups. He felt the sentence that directed councilors to inform the other members of the council of matters being considered by an intergovernmental body should contain the caveat 'if possible,' given that agendas sometimes did not arrive with adequate time to provide notice and receive direction on such policies. He commented that the last sentence of the second paragraph, which directed councilors to vote on matters with policy implications or budgetary considerations as per adopted City or council policy and direction, was a key point for him. Ms. Taylor said sometimes the council knew in advance what was being considered, as in the case of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). She advocated for holding a work session on MPC agenda items in order to solidify which direction the City Council representatives should take. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Kelly to consider a situation in which he was in that voting position and, to the best of his ability, believed he was following City Council direction but had, in fact, misinterpreted the direction. Mr. Kelly responded that there were fuzzy areas sometimes and one did the best he or she could. Ms. Taylor commented that sometimes that just happened. Mr. Pryor related his experience as a representative of the School District 4J to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He underscored that he spoke for himself in that capacity and not for the school board, unless specifically directed by the board to do so. Mr. Pryor remarked that it seemed unnecessary to list the different intergovernmental bodies and advisory groups given the definition. He also pointed out it was possible that a group could be left off the list. He recommended eliminating the list, noting that this alone would shorten the section by three sentences. Ms. Bettman said one reason this issue had been raised was because the MPC brought it up to the council. She averred that councilors did not always have the time to check in with councilors regarding their positions on issues, but where there was clear council policy she declared councilors should vote consistently based on the policy. She noted that legal counsel had indicated that there was no legal requirement for an elected representative to vote in any way other than how they wanted to. Mr. Pryor said the principle was fine because the councilors were part of a larger representative body. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 3 Process Session Mr. Papfi suggested the following change to the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 9.03: "The Mayor or councilors should inform the other members of the City Council of the matters being considered by t~.c a~c, ve nc, ted intergovernmental bodies, and to the greatest extent possible, seek direction from the City Council on issues directly pertaining to the City of Eugene c,r ~--:~*:~ ~ ........ s and adopted city policy." Mr. Pap6 also recommended making the following change to the fourth sentence of the third paragraph: "If there is existing City or Council policy, the voting delegate ....... wtll vote in accordance with that policy." Mr. Kelly noted that the council needed to adopt the revised agreements via resolution in a regular session, but suggested the council move to approve the revision. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved approval of the revisions, as discussed. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Continuing, Mr. Pap6 underscored that microphone time continued to be an issue. He hoped the council would be judicious with its time. He recalled a recent meeting at which members of the public who made time to testify at a public hearing were turned away because the preceding items on the agenda took too long due to copious discussion. Ms. Ortiz said she did not feel compelled to weigh in on agenda items all of the time. She declared that respect for public speakers was very important. Mayor Piercy commented that a tight schedule meant she should monitor and shorten comment time after the Public Forum. Ms. Taylor reiterated her objection to ending meetings at 10 p.m. She thought this rushed some items, adding that it was always better to postpone than to push something through without adequate discussion. She preferred to shorten the council's response time to the Public Forum than the speaker's time to testify. Mr. Kelly agreed that the problem arose sometimes but did not think it was as ubiquitous as some people thought it was. He pointed out that everyone was given an opportunity to speak in every round, should they so choose. He felt that a new rule regarding microphone time was not needed, rather he thought a combination of self-discipline and peer pressure, i.e., an after-meeting comment, would work to curtail microphone abuse. He asserted the meeting cited by Mr. Pap6 had an over-full agenda. Mr. Pryor said self-discipline would take care of the problem. He noted that most questions to staff could be dealt with prior to meetings and then meetings could be solely for the purpose of deliberation and comments. He remarked that he was unprepared to change the current system with time limits until he saw how long some comments were and also how focused they were utilizing a greater degree of self- discipline. Ms. Bettman opined that more expository material in agenda packets would reduce the need for council questions. She also wished that staff would limit its comments to its presentations. She said it had gotten to the point where staff was participating in the decision-making process and did not have a timer. She underscored her feelings that staff should be there to answer questions and not to exposit or rebut issues. Additionally, she registered her opposition to one-minute rounds for council comments and questions. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 4 Process Session Ms. Taylor suggested the council try a meeting without the timer. She noted that former Mayor Jim Torrey had initially presided over meetings without timers. She thought it was undignified to be stopped by a buzzer. She posited that one might have more to say in the second or third round than the first. Ms. Solomon said she had come to appreciate having time limits. She disagreed that staff participated in discussions or rebutted the council. She stressed that staff members were the experts called upon to ensure the council received correct information. She commented that staff presentations had dramatically improved since the council goals session at which they had been asked to utilize PowerPoint presentations more and talk less. Mr. Kelly observed that the "vibe" of the process session felt more like dialogue than posturing. He said he was "jazzed about that." Mr. Kelly suggested experimenting with the timer and using it, but without the buzzer. He thought it would provide good feedback for councilors. Regarding staff, Mr. Kelly agreed presentations had improved. He said there were some staff members that were better than others at answering questions succinctly. City Manager Taylor asked if these comments pertained more to work sessions than regular sessions. Mr. Kelly replied that he was referring to work sessions. City Manager Taylor said he would convey these comments to the executive managers. Ms. Hayes suggested the meeting move on. She observed that the councilors supported trying a meeting without the buzzer. Mr. Pryor remarked that he liked staff participation. He averred that it helped to fill in all the pieces and facilitated the council's ability to make informed decisions. He said when all was said and done, only the councilors held the right to vote. Ms. Hayes surmised from the conversation that concerns regarding staff presentations were being addressed and had gotten somewhat better. Mr. Poling underscored that staff members come into a meeting having done the work on an issue. He felt sometimes staff might need to remind the council as to what direction the council was headed. He commented that some staff members had been "dressed down" in the public eye and this had hampered their ability provide their best professional input. Mr. Pap~ also appreciated the timer being there. He advocated using the microphone with self-discipline and courtesy for everyone else there. Ms. Rose indicated it would not be a problem to disconnect the buzzer for a meeting. Ms. Bettman thought it might make more sense if councilors had a monthly cumulative time allotment. She said some issues required more deliberation. She commented that she would hold back off on an issue that was less important to her and speak at greater length to an important issue. She called the time limits "artificial constraints." Speaking to the issue of staff, Ms. Bettman opined it had more to do with staff"ideology and agenda." She opined staff members advocated for particular issues and discriminated against people who did not MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 5 Process Session agree with them. She pointed out that staffpeople had an entire agenda item summary (AIS) and an uninterrupted presentation to "make their case." Ms. Ortiz liked having a timer and also the idea of a cumulative amount of time. However, she agreed with contentions that the one-minute time limit was unrealistic. She suggested rounds should go no lower than two minutes. Ms. Ortiz said interactions with staff worked best when it provided the facts and not direction. Ms. Taylor opined that staff members were sometimes trying to make policy and this was the j ob of the council. Mr. Kelly remarked that this sort of abuse was not widespread. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz that after a presentation, staff should only provide facts. Mr. Kelly averred that agenda packets were getting thinner. He pointed out that the agenda packet for the next work session at which the council would consider remanding an ordinance did not contain a copy of the ordinance. Mr. Pryor related his expectation that staff would have a position on an agenda item. He said elected officials relied UPon this because the staff members were hired based on their expertise. He agreed, however, that staff members should draw the line at lobbying for a particular position. Ms. Utecht summarized the discussion, as follows: · The council would hold a work session without the buzzer; · Mayor Piercy would try to help draw attention to time limits; · It was suggested that people who attend a meeting to testify at a public heating that looked to be ultimately postponed due to time constraints be sent home earlier than at the end of the meeting; · Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor talked about the possibility of having a cumulative amount of time to speak to issues; · Some councilors felt the one-minute rounds for comments and questions should be eliminated. Ms. Utecht noted that Mr. Pap6 included Robert's Rules of Order on his list of concerns. Mr. Pap6 clarified that his concern was particular to the act of reconsidering a motion. He stated that should the maker of the motion not be present and/or not informed 24 hours prior to the motion to reconsider, then the motion should be tabled. Mr. Kelly thought it could be brought up and tabled again. He said a motion to reconsider meant something unusual was going on. He felt there were two rules in place that addressed this - one that dictated that a councilor with a motion needed to let staff know in advance and the other that said a councilor could request in writing that a motion not be considered in their absence. Mr. Poling asked how one would know in advance if a motion to reconsider "came out of left field." Ms. Rose read the clause from the operating agreements that governed such motions and it was determined that Mr. Pap6's concem was addressed. Mr. Poling was not sure how to address the issue. He felt the language would still allow someone to make a motion to reconsider at a meeting at which the councilor who made the original motion was absent. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 6 Process Session Ms. Bettman said if one had the intent to get the motion out there but found it not possible to do so, parliamentary rules should not be imposed upon the body. She thought such a situation was only a remote instance and if it happened it was up to the council to decide whether or not to proceed with the motion depending on the circumstances. She felt there had only been a few instances under which a councilor had been specifically undermined, but given that former Mayor Torrey was no longer in office she asserted this was not likely to happen anymore. Ms. Taylor commented that things of this nature had occurred in the past. Mr. Pap6 acceded that clarifying rules were not necessary at this time. Ms. Hayes noted that the last item to be discussed under the operating agreements was parking. Ms. Bettman discussed her difficulties in finding parking for meetings and the number of parking tickets she received given that meetings were sometimes unpredictably long. Mr. Poling suggested a universal parking permit. He registered his offense at the last sentence in the memorandum on parking that indicated the annual cost was $6,000. Mr. Kelly thought the 4A parking permit could serve as the universal permit. City Manager Taylor asked if it would be possible to create a special parking key for the councilors or, perhaps, coupons. Mr. Kelly thought a parking key that would work in the meters could end up costing more. City Manager Taylor also suggested a parking decal that would allow councilors to park in all City- owned and managed parking spaces. He indicated he would investigate the possibilities. Ms. Utecht asked the councilors if they wished to work on the Shared Expectations List. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly indicated their preference not to work on it. Mr. Poling thought Mr. Pryor and Ms. Ortiz could ask the senior members of the council clarifying questions if they wanted to. Ms. Ortiz asked if the list had been distilled from a larger list. She requested a copy of the larger list. Mayor Piercy commented that the expectations might not be shared given that they were not actually adopted. Ms. Utecht commented that there was a lengthy discussion on the expectations in September 2003. She asked that Ms. Rose provide the three new members with copies of the full discussion. Should they feel a need to further discuss the list, she suggested they bring the list to the next process session. Ms. Hayes called for a ten-minute break. 3) Boards and Commissions Process Ms. Walston explained that the Boards and Commissions process existed on two levels, the "macro level," as dictated by code, and the "micro level," consisting of the council's process to set up interviews and timelines. She noted that some interview questions were redundant and there had been some confusion as to who should be interviewed and with other aspects of the interviews. She said there had not been a comprehensive look at the Boards and Commissions process and the codes that govern them in twelve years. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 7 Process Session Ms. Taylor thought the questioning process was artificial. She opined that the same questions were not appropriate for every person. She wondered if some questions could be improvised and whether the process could be made more informal. She commented that the person ended up being judged by the quality of the interview. Mr. Kelly averred that being articulate in an interview demonstrated how articulate a person would be in their capacity as an appointed member of a group. He supported printing the schedule of interviews up front. He advocated for building in "overflow" for the interviews. Mr. Kelly alleged that some votes were not counted correctly in the last round of appointees. He also commented that councilors should make a commitment to attend all of the interviews. Regarding the interview questions, Mr. Kelly noted that the council inevitably changed the questions prior to interviews. He suggested the questions be provided in advance to the council. He felt two or three of the same questions should be asked of every interviewee and then the council should be able to reserve the right to ask other questions. Ms. Walston pointed out, for new members, that some committees required an application, a supplemental questionnaire, and the interview. Mr. Kelly thought there was much redundancy between the supplemental questionnaire and the interview questions. He suggested that a single distinct application be created for the "weightier" groups, such as the Human Rights Commission, Planning Commission, and Budget Committee. Ms. Ortiz thought a little redundancy in the line of questioning was acceptable. However, she also felt that to fully engage the community, it was important to occasionally overlook a small lack of expertise or a lack of articulateness. She liked the idea of formulating applications that pertained to the particular groups. She asked, though, if there was a legal rationale for having the same questions. Mr. Poling commented that he had sat on hundreds of interview panels and all of them were obligated to ask the same questions of every applicant. He was also curious as to whether there was a legal rationale for doing so in this situation. Ms. Utecht surmised that there would be less exposure with volunteers because they did not receive a financial benefit as a result of being selected. She commented that one would have to be careful to ensure the same objectives were addressed. She said that the selection of an applicant based on a question asked only of that person could be problematic. Mr. Poling advocated for asking the same questions for all applicants. Mr. Kelly said the only instance in which he would want to ask an individual a unique question would be to respond to a unique response on an application or supplemental questionnaire. Mr. Poling recommended the application process begin earlier. He said the current process resulted in a time crunch for the Budget Committee, which started the month after the interview process was com- pleted. He also felt a procedure should be created to fill unexpected vacancies, such as a matrix of second choices. Ms. Bettman wanted a standardized process for vacancies as well. She appreciated Mr. Ortiz' comments MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 8 Process Session regarding being open to appointing people with other strengths. She said that the City's current boards and commissions looked homogenous to her and advocated for more diversity in the council's selections. Regarding interview questions, Ms. Bettman indicated she would like to be able to ask follow-up questions. She also wished the applications could be made "more beautiful," adding that sometimes they were hard to read. Mayor Piercy asked if the applicants for the boards and commissions had preferences for who they wanted to serve. She thought it would be helpful for them to have guiding principles and to know who needed to be at the table. Ms. Solomon wished for a better distribution of ward constituents among such groups. She noted that only one person had applied from Ward 6. She felt Ms. Walston did a great job of providing the information on applicants regarding age, gender, race, and neighborhood. Mr. Pap6 said he always tried to look at ward distribution when selecting members for boards, commit- tees, and commissions. He suggested the council have a work session to talk about improving the selection process and the questions they asked applicants. He thought the council should "scramble" the questions every year. Mr. Poling suggested that soliciting information from people currently on the boards, commissions, and committees regarding what they look for in a fellow member could ultimately narrow the scope and decrease diversity. Mayor Piercy countered that they could also recommend having different perspectives. She commented on the importance of having people with different income levels participate. Ms. Taylor did not think it mattered where people lived in the City. She advocated for having a variety of people with differences in philosophical stance and vocation sit on the committees. Mr. Pryor said he would look for diverse perspectives on a committee so that the results would come from a collaboration of different points of view. Ms. Utecht asked if a scheduled work session would include all aspects of this topic. Ms. Solomon preferred to "take a stab" at this topic in the next process session as opposed to a work session. Mr. Kelly was concerned that the next process session was not scheduled until April. He wanted to make sure there would be time to work through this. Regarding diversity, he agreed the council should seek to increase it in every aspect. He commented that deliberating in public sometimes caused constraint and wondered if personnel matters could extend to commissions, etc. He felt such deliberations should be held in executive session. City Manager Taylor said he would pose this question to legal counsel. Ms. Bettman believed there were many kinds of diversity that should be considered before geographic diversity. She asked to hear from staff as to whether other communities had found ways to create more diversity. She opined that councilors wanted people who represented their own points of view to be on the boards and commissions. Mayor Piercy remarked that people could have more than one quality, and regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum, a person added something unique to the committee process. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 9 Process Session Mr. Pryor liked the distinction between the work sessions and the process sessions. He found the process session to be the most helpful and useful meeting he had participated in thus far. He did not mind waiting until April to finish addressing the issue. Ms. Utecht asked the mayor and councilors how they wished to proceed. After some discussion on whether to schedule an additional earlier process session, the council decided to have staff work on the results from the discussion and bring the extrapolation back to the council process session scheduled for Monday, April 18. Mr. Pap6 objected to allowing this topic to take up the whole process session. Ms. Ortiz said it was an important topic. She wanted to do it right so that the results would have a long shelf life and did not want to limit the process. Mr. Pap6 suggested splitting the issue and addressing one piece in the process session and one piece in a work session. Ms. Taylor advocated for devoting the process session to this issue. Mr. Kelly stated that there was formalized code language for standardized commissions and committees, but there was nothing like that for committees formed by the mayor. He thought there should be some kind of guiding language for mayor's committeesl He opined there was some value in bounding what a mayor's committee could be. He noted that the council had approved the nominations for former Mayor Torrey's Economic Development Committee. He likened it to the Senate approving the President's nominations and advocated for continuing this supervisory role. Mayor Piercy said while she recognized why the issue had arisen, she only had a couple of things under her charge, the ability to weigh in on the agenda and the right to form committees (with the caveat that budget considerations had to be weighed), and the rest of her job was "showing up." She was concerned about being constrained, especially given that any recommendations or proposed actions that resulted from a committee would come before the council anyway. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Kelly. She remarked that the council was "expected" to support the results from such committees. She felt a committee should bring ideas but not have the assumption that the council would automatically support them. Mr. Pap6 said he would not put limitations on the mayor's committees. Mr. Pryor called it a great check and balance. He thought it was an interesting conversation but did not want to constrain the rights of the executive branch. Ms. Utecht observed that Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor were the only councilors interested in discussing this item further. Mr. Kelly suggested the item be "parked" until fall 2005. 4) Strategic Planning Session City Manager Taylor asked if the suggested start and stop times would work for councilors. Mr. Kelly could not make it on Friday until 10 a.m. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 10 Process Session Ms. Bettman had conflicts on both days. She said she could make arrangements to stay later on February 25 and asked if the council could agree to a later start time on February 26, such as 10:30 a.m. Mr. Pryor felt the council might not need the entire time it had scheduled for the session. Ms. Solomon stated that she had to be finished at 5 p.m. on Friday, February 25. Mr. Pap6 expressed his frustration that the council still had difficulty setting aside this time. He was opposed to cutting the time back. Mr. Kelly proposed the session be scheduled from 10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Friday and 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturday. Ms. Taylor declared the session to be "way too long." Ms. Bettman observed that the session had been shorter in 2004 and asked why it had been scheduled for longer this year. City Manager Taylor responded that they were hoping for two full days of retreat time and if it ended earlier, then this would be a reward for the work. He felt the time set aside would provide ample parameters to cover the ground the council needed to cover. Ms. Bettman thought it would be a good compromise to go with the times suggested by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly asked that the tentative schedule be circulated to the mayor and City Council for comments, once it had been submitted by the facilitator. Mr. Pap6 stressed that the City had hired a qualified facilitator and though the councilors might think items on her agenda were superfluous, they were likely borne of good ideas. Ms. Bettman recalled that the councilors had jettisoned a visioning exercise in the previous year's strategic planning session. She encouraged staff to recommend to the facilitator that she get right to the issues. Ms. Solomon recommended that the council be open and receptive to doing business in another way. She was reluctant to cut the facilitator short. She appreciated the opportunity to work with her and encouraged her colleagues not to be too picky about the agenda. Regarding the role of executives at the retreat, Mr. Kelly registered his opposition to allowing the mayor to vote on the internal decision-making process. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Kelly's logic but thought it more compelling to have the mayor be part of the team. Mayor Piercy said the facilitator was thinking that full participation did not have a beating on the final vote. City Manager Taylor concurred, stating that the results from the planning session would come before the council for the final vote. MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 11 Process Session The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 12 Process Session