Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: June 26, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov 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 May 10, 2006, Workshop, May 22, 2006, City Council Meeting, May 24, 2006, Work Session, and May 31, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.May 10, 2006, Workshop B.May 22, 2006, City Council Meeting C.May 24, 2006, Work Session D.May 31, 2006, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060626\S0606263A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: May 10, 2006–Work Shop TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 6/13 Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 6/19 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 6/19 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 6/20 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 6/20 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Shop McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 10, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. A. WORK SHOP: City Hall Complex Strategic Issues The council was joined for the item by Thomas Hacker, Jonah Cohen, and Dana Ing Crawford of Thomas Hacker Architects, Ellen Teninty of T’N T Consultants, Galen Ohmart of Solarc, Doug Macy and Ken Pirie of Walker Macy, Dave Wilson and Rick Rehfeldt of McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie, and Kyle Brown of J. D. White Company. Police Chief Robert Lehner, and Glen Svendsen and Mike Penwell of the Facility Management Division were also present. Mr. Cohen reviewed the agenda. Ms. Crawford reviewed the space needs analysis. Mr. Papé requested a comparison of the current net square feet per employee with those of other communi- ties, including police employees. Ms. Teninty reminded the council of the work that had been done via e-mail regarding the criteria. She reviewed the criteria. Mr. Hacker introduced Mr. Ohmart, who discussed the Total Cost of Ownership Concept, which he characterized as a way to make decisions about such projects. He shared a graph showing the total cost of ownership over 50 years for a new City Hall. Mr. Kelly objected to the way salary and benefits were considered in the analysis, saying only the future difference in salary and benefits should be accounted for. Mr. Ohmart suggested that the council consider where it wished to focus its efforts and where it placed its values. For example, the council identified energy efficiency as an important criterion, and if the focus of the project design was placed on creating a space that benefited employees by making them more happy and healthy, that could increase employee productivity and reduce staff growth. Mr. Kelly said that granting Mr. Ohman’s point and estimating five percent more employee productivity in the future, that was the figure that should be accounted for as savings in the total cost of ownership. He continued to question the analysis. Ms. Bettman had the same concern raised by Mr. Kelly as well as questions about the energy costs. She said the consultants showed a total amount over 50 years, but for what project? At what level was the consultant team aware of the maintenance costs, and for what type of building? Did the cost reflect if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 10, 2006 Page 1 Work Shop City would be more or less energy-efficient, or if it merely carried forward what was happening now? Mr. Ohmart clarified that the projections were for a baseline building of 300,000 square feet meeting current energy codes, and were order of magnitude estimates. Mr. Hacker reviewed a diagram entitled Consolidated Space Needs, which showed the existing City Hall volume, total volume needs in 2030, and other existing City Hall spaces to be consolidated. Mr. Hacker reviewed Renovation Options 1 and 2. He emphasized the high cost of building a second story onto the existing City Hall because of the changes in seismic codes. New reinforced pilings would be needed. Neither option would work for the police from a cost viewpoint, so those functions were located elsewhere. He called attention to an aerial photograph of site options in downtown and indicated that in order to approach the project as a “renovate/build new,” there must be land acquisition and/or the purchase of other building space. He pointed to the site of the existing federal courthouse and the Good Times Tavern as potential sites for acquisition. Mr. Hacker reviewed a series of hybrid options, which involved saving part of the existing building and adding on to the building. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the options. Mr. Hacker reviewed the new construction options. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the options. Ms. Crawford distributed cost models for all the options. Mr. Hacker emphasized the numbers should not be used to establish a project budget; the information was provided as a way to understand the costs of each option, relative to each other. Everything was estimated using 2006 dollars, and there was no escalation built in. He introduced cost consultant Steve Gunn, who was present in the audience to answer questions. Mr. Hacker briefly reviewed the cost models. Ms. Teninty solicited questions and comments. Mr. Kelly did not think that Hybrid 2 was worth bothering with, given that only the Council Chamber was proposed to be saved. He thought Hybrid 1 had some intriguing possibilities. He also liked having a dollar amount attached to the complete renovation as well as the additional space shown. He said that Renovation Option 1 was costly but not dramatically higher in cost than the other options. At this point, he considered all the options other than Hybrid 2 to be “in play.” Mr. Poling thought the council had some good options to consider and he wanted to hear what the public had to say. Mayor Piercy wanted to know what different segments of the community thought were the most important and desirable things about a city hall. Mr. Papé asked if any of the models were more energy-efficient than the others, and if that could be included in the matrix. Members of the consultant team indicated that could happen. Ms. Taylor suggested that human energy could contribute to lower health costs if people had to walk more to get from place to place. She emphasized the need to keep storm water concerns in mind. At the request of Ms. Taylor, Ms. Teninty overviewed the upcoming public events related to the subject of a new city hall. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 10, 2006 Page 2 Work Shop Referring to the evaluation criteria, Ms. Bettman said that values about the city building up and more densely were not reflected in the criteria and they should also be considered by the public as they were just as quantifiable as the other criteria. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the hybrids developed by the consultant team and said she continued to support the B options. In terms of the existing City Hall, she was not motivated to preserve the existing building. She did not believe the case had been made for its preservation. She wanted the Mayor and City Council space combined in the public space, and that seemed more problematic in the renovation models. However, she looked forward to hearing what the public had to say. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for Ms. Bettman’s remarks about other values. He suggested that another criterion could be consistency with existing City policies and values. Mr. Kelly requested information for the June 13 meeting regarding the renovation expense and how much of that cost was due to seismic codes or a change in building codes. He said that knowing how far the consultants were going with regard to energy efficiency in those options would also be useful. Mr. Kelly reiterated his interest in seeing information about salaries and benefits that showed the difference in expected costs rather than the total costs. Mayor Piercy hoped the council did not lose focus on downtown as everyone’s downtown, not just an area associated with the downtown residents and Downtown Eugene, Inc. Mr. Papé said the council was supposed to have a discussion about Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) buildings, and he believed that issue dovetailed with the issue before the council. He asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to schedule the work session on LEED buildings sooner than later. Responding to a question from Mr. Solomon about whether a half block would accommodate a new building, Mr. Hacker suggested that the council should look at several different approaches. The site selection option that would be discussed later involved some half-block sites, one of which the City owned, and the City’s interest in the value of the existing site was also a consideration. He thought the consultant team needed to show that option in more than one configuration. Ms. Teninty solicited ideas for the public forum and questions to be asked. She asked that any suggestions be forwarded by Monday. Mr. Kelly thought the consultant team’s presentation would inform the public discussion. He wanted a broad sense of what the public thought about the current City Hall at both the practical and emotional level. Ms. Teninty said the consultant team had been asking that question throughout the public input process. Mayor Piercy wanted to make sure that those who represented special interests were invited to the forums to come and share what was “make or break” for them. Mayor Piercy suggested that the consultant team contact the councilors individually so they could provide the names of people they wanted to make sure the consultant team interviewed. Mr. Poling asked if the consultant team was talking to the employees who would work in the buildings. Ms. Teninty said direct communication had been established and she was working on further communication approaches. She wanted to do more in that area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 10, 2006 Page 3 Work Shop Ms. Taylor thought it very important for the public to have honest information, and she did not think it fair to discuss the current cost of heating City Hall because renovations that might have mitigated those costs had been postponed. She also called statements about earthquakes “scare tactics.” Ms. Taylor agreed with the Mayor that Downtown Eugene, Inc. and downtown residents had no more to do with downtown than residents who lived outside the downtown in other places. Ms. Taylor encouraged the consultant team to make a presentation on the subject before the City Club. Mr. Kelly raised for future discussion Ms. Taylor’s remarks about earthquakes as a scare tactic. He understood in a moderate earthquake, the building would fall down. He said seismic renovation was incorporated into the cost, but at a very high cost. Ms. Solomon left the meeting. Ms. Bettman asked if participants at the public forums would be asked to vote on the options. She did not favor that approach, and expressed concerns about giving people the opportunity to vote at all, which could set up some expectation that the council would follow the vote in its decision-making. She said the public process needed to be clear that the forums would provide feedback for the council to consider when making its decisions. Ms. Teninty acknowledged the point, and said the consultant team had made it clear about the nature of the input and what it would be used for. The meeting adjourned at 2 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 10, 2006 Page 4 Work Shop NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: May 22, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060522m2.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 6/2/06rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff 6/14 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 6/15 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 6/15 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall May 22, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed everyone to the meeting. She explained that the first item of business was a Consent Calendar item from the City Council meeting of May 8. The council was unable to complete this item during its work session. D. CONSENT CALENDAR 2H. Approval of Police Auditor Recruitment and Selection Process Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the recruitment and se- lection process for the Police Auditor outlined in Attachment A and the screening guide re- flected in Attachment B. Councilor Bettman indicated she would support the motion as her concerns had been addressed at the ad hoc committee meeting. Councilor Kelly said that in terms of community input, there was a suggestion of holding a community forum as an alternative an interview panel. He assumed that approval of the motion would select the community forum process. Councilor Kelly thought the points allotted for experience focused too much on public sector work. Lynn Stimson, Recruitment and Selection Manager for Human Resource and Risk Services, responded that it was reasonable to consider using other options for points. She thought non-public sector background could be included in the selection process. Mayor Piercy commented that the process was a tool for the hiring body to use. Councilor Ortiz hoped the rest of the council could support this motion and move forward as there was much work remaining. Councilor Kelly thanked the committee and staff for their high-level work on this. He suggested that it would be a good time to expand the committee informally. He recommended that Councilor Bettman be included on the ad hoc committee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman indicated her willingness to serve on the committee. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association (LCHBA), wished to address the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan project list. She averred there was a lack of information available in order to calculate the level of services for the different categories within the project list. She said some of her calculations indicated that those moving into new growth areas would pay for a different level of service than current residents. She related that she conferred with Fred McVey, Engineering Data Services Manager for the Public Works Department, and Mr. McVey responded that this would be addressed during the methodology discussion. She was unconcerned by this as long as all parties were comfortable. She said that she “talked to various people from around the state” and no one knew the answer. She stressed that action taken at the present meeting would include a column referencing the projects that were growth-eligible. She felt there was a lot of information that was not taken into account that would reduce that number significantly. She underscored that the LCHBA had “serious issues” with that column. She asked whether the LCHBA would have to take it to court or give up the opportunity to challenge it down the road. She proposed that no one “try to establish new law.” She conveyed the LCHBA’s chief concern that if the LCHBA did not challenge the project list at this stage, it would be precluded from challenging the methodology for the growth allocation when it was finally determined. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, referred to an article in the Sports section of the May 18 issue of The Oregonian. He said the article was about the arms race and sports spending. He asserted that people in Eugene enabled sports spending and the arms race by doing nothing. He felt such spending hurt human services locally and nationally. He encouraged the council to read the article. Mr. Vishanoff reiterated his opposition to the University’s plans for a basketball arena. He said right now “the pork was siting the arena” and the no-bid contract enabled this. William Ross , 60 North Adams Street, said he was pleased to announce that the Nuestro Lugar/Our Place Teen Center found a location in the Overpark building in downtown Eugene. He conveyed the excitement of the LEAD (Leadership Education Adventure Direction) group. He said the center would open in winter 2007 and this fall it would be used by LEAD, Juventud FACETA, and the Youth Action Board (YAB) as office space and to hold group meetings. He stressed that the teen center would not be a drop-in center. He stated that it would be a membership teen program run by and for low-income and at-risk youth with the supervision of adult volunteers and staff. He said LEAD was dedicated to creating a safe environment for a thriving downtown and was taking the necessary steps to ensure this. He averred that youth empower- ment would be “woven into the very fabric” of the center’s existence. He reiterated that the center would provide a range of activities at no cost to young people to develop education, awareness, and self- confidence needed to end depression and change the world. He listed some of the services and activities that would be available, such as a computer lab, language classes, tutoring, and counseling. Osana Waterstone , 295 North Ash Street, stated that he had been a participant in LEAD for eight months. He reminded the council that when LEAD representatives first came before the council, they indicated they MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting would attend every meeting until they were able obtain a space for a teen center. He conveyed LEAD’s gratitude for the council’s help in procuring space for the center. He said this would be the last time LEAD representatives came to testify on a regular basis, though they would continue to provide occasional updates regarding teen center activities. Jenny Sink , 393 Limerick Avenue, thanked the council for its support of Golden Gardens Park. She averred that councilors had proven they “put kids first.” She said she would be able to tell her kids that they were heard by City representatives and that they should “keep talking.” She reiterated that many Bethel-area families would help the Parks Bond Measure be successful. Shauna Davis , 2350 North Terry Street, #11, echoed Ms. Sink’s testimony. She said, on behalf of her family and her community, that adding the funding for Golden Gardens Park and elevating its priority in the bond measure meant a lot. She wished to assure the councilors that they would help get Bethel voters out to pass the measure. She thanked the council for its time and consideration. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She commented that the City was counting on community help to gain approval of the PROS bond measure. She also wished to convey the council’s appreciation for the activism of the LEAD group. She said everyone was counting on the teens to change the minds of downtown businesses and residents about the teen center and its participants. She encouraged the LEAD representatives to conduct outreach. Mayor Piercy called for council comments. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone for their testimony. He called the activism of LEAD representatives “stunning.” He acknowledged that the space was smaller than had been hoped for, adding that this would be a temporary space until a larger one was found. He felt LEAD teens had their “act together” and that they would continue to set a great example and put a positive face on the youth of the community. He urged them to keep up the good work. Councilor Poling said the LEAD teens had placed themselves in a fishbowl and he had no doubt that once people were able to see what LEAD was about and how it operated, the teen center would gain more community support. He recommended, however, that for the present, LEAD teens get out and educate the community. He wished the teens good luck and expressed some disappointment that the young people were not going to continue coming to meetings every week. He was glad they were going to provide occasional updates, adding that the teens were “our future leaders.” Councilor Papé stated that he was very impressed with the LEAD teens. He said they had a vision, they picked a strategy, and they worked tirelessly to achieve their goal. He echoed comments regarding the level of responsibility the LEAD teens were taking on and wished them good luck. Councilor Papé related that several councilors toured Golden Gardens Park earlier in the day and he was impressed by its size. He expressed admiration for the persistence and vision that the Friends of Golden Gardens Park displayed. Councilor Solomon thanked the council for its support for the Friends of Golden Gardens Park as they navigated their way through the local democratic process. She looked forward to meeting with the group on May 24 to begin strategizing for the successful passage of the bond measure. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz thanked both groups for being so active in the community. She felt it had been a good exercise in public process. She related that a local news reporter commented that the same 20 people show up to make decisions about the community. She was glad to see more people providing input. She applauded both groups. Councilor Bettman echoed the comments concerning the LEAD youth. She congratulated them on their success, noting that “now the work really begins.” She was also glad to see the representatives of the Friends of Golden Gardens Park. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - April 10, 2006, City Council Meeting - April 19, 2006, Work Session - April 26, 2006, Workshop B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) FY07 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program D. Adoption of Resolution 4873 Authorizing a Second Term of Historic Property Classification and Special Assessment for Residential Property Pursuant to B 2776 (2005 OR Laws CH 549) E. Adoption of Resolution 4873 Authorizing the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Hospital Facilities Authority of the City of Medford for the Purposes of Financing and Refinancing Capital Improvements to Cascade Manor F. Adoption of Resolution 4872 Amending Eugene City Council Operating Agreements and Repealing Resolution Number 4828 Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman indicated she had submitted corrections to the minutes electronically. She pulled Item C. Mayor Piercy noted the corrections and deemed them, without objection, approved. Councilor Taylor pulled Item B. Councilor Poling pulled Item F. Councilor Kelly said he had previously submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections to the minutes, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items B, C, and F, passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Item B, Councilor Taylor pointed out that a work session on standards for infill had yet to be scheduled. Councilor Kelly said he expected that item to come before the council when it discussed opportunity siting and infill standards with the Planning Commission. He thought this would be the avenue by which this discussion would come to the council. City Manager Taylor recalled that there had been a previous work session on infill and he thought it would be inherent in the discussion on opportunity siting that was tentatively rescheduled for June 28. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; Consent Agenda Item B, the Tentative Working Agenda, passed unani- mously, 8:0. Regarding Item C, Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the handout from engineering staff. She called it unfortunate that she only received it before the meeting and did not have a chance to review it. Her main concern with the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) budget and capital improvement plan (CIP) was that it appeared to contain $31 million in capacity enhancing projects and another $2 million in systems development charges (SDCs) to pay for them. She averred the City had a policy that dictated that development would “pay its own way” in terms of capacity. She did not believe this was being done and meant that ratepayers would have to absorb the cost. She observed that costs to the ratepayers increased every year. She could not support this. Councilor Kelly asked the MWMC representatives to speak to Councilor Bettman’s concerns. He wondered how the disparity had come to be so great. Susie Smith, General Manager for MWMC and the Environmental Manager for the City of Springfield, stated that she worked with Peter Ruffier of the City’s Wastewater Division to administer the regional wastewater program. She explained that MWMC updated the facilities plan in 2004 and the result had been a much larger CIP than had been contemplated previously. She said leading up to that, the MWMC was on the brink of adopting an updated SDC methodology that would have incorporated ten years of projects as opposed to the five-year list figured in the old SDC methodology. She stated that both the project list and the SDC methodology were updated in 2004 and, in doing so, MWMC made every effort to follow the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) to a tee. She related that MWMC was under “a lot of scrutiny” in the process. A committee composed of members of the community worked on the methodology and still the MWMC was in litigation over whether or not the procedures and the ultimate methodology met the statutes. Ms. Smith explained that there was a limitation on how and what could be charged on a “per new user entering the system” basis. She underscored that the SDC improvement fee did have to be based on the new 20-year list. Due to capacity constraints and environmental requirements, the 20-year list was front- loaded in order to avoid overflows of the sewer system. She noted that at present, overflows occurred “in less than a five-year storm event” (which is the State standard for overflow events). She underscored that front-loading the project list related directly to the $51 million CIP for the next year and was why MWMC would be going to the bond market for $50 million in revenue bonds. She said the MWMC budget brought together revenue sources for capital from various places. She affirmed that the cash on hand was based on SDCs and user rate revenues and it was spent in the ways that they were statutorily eligible to be spent. Over the next several years, MWMC would be spending nearly $80 million in debt financing to fund those projects and this would be repaid through user rates, reimbursement SDCs, and improvement SDCs as the funds were available. She underscored that the projects had to be built now and the MWMC had to borrow money to do so, but would be able to pay back some of those bonds with future SDCs that come in. Councilor Kelly asked if the new SDC methodology adopted in 2004 was set up so that, over time, the $31 million in initial projects would be covered by SDCs. Ms. Smith replied that there was no simple answer. She clarified that if a project was perfectly phased, with development coming into the community so the money was raised as the projects were able to be constructed and “everything were in perfect parity,” she could guarantee that the $31 million in projects could be covered by those revenues. She stressed that the MWMC would have to look at what revenues came in and would have to meet its debt service requirements regardless of what the rate of community development was. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly surmised that if community development was slower, the revenues would lag behind the need. Ms. Smith affirmed this. She reiterated that she was unable to say with 100 percent certainty that the result would be complete parity with 100 percent recapture of the $31 million because of the factors in play. Councilor Kelly indicated he would support the motion. He opined that there was “clearly a problem behind the idea of SDCs” and wondered if a State-level fix was needed. Councilor Papé asked what would happen if development did not occur as predicted and the bond had to be paid. Ms. Smith replied that the difference would have to be paid by ratepayers. She said this was conceivable, but MWMC used a very conservative growth projection with regard to SDCs in order to avoid potential volatility in the market and a reduction in revenues. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Papé, Ms. Smith said the SDC formulas were the same for both Springfield and Eugene. Councilor Papé asked how much of the $145 million, 20-year CIP had been undertaken. Ms. Smith responded that construction bids were in and a contract had been signed for the clarifier improvements, a $17 million project, and construction was set to begin in early June. The engineering/design phase for the aeration basins and for the digester/mixing project was nearly complete and would soon go out for construction bids. While she was uncertain exactly how much these three projects would cost, the construction portion was planned as part of the $51 million component. Councilor Bettman declared the budget to be inconsistent with Eugene policy and with MWMC policy. She asked if the same conservative growth projections had been used for the project list as had been used for the SDC revenue. Ms. Smith responded that the conservative growth projections were a mechanism to help ensure no revenue shortfalls and the CIP was based on Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) growth analyses. Councilor Bettman asked if the project list could be postponed until the SDC revenue “caught up.” Ms. Smith replied that some aspects of the performance of MWMC regional wastewater facilities were not in current compliance under certain conditions with the existing permit. She explained that the clarifier project work being done to expand the wet weather flow capacity was needed now because of compliance issues, even though SDC revenue was not yet available to pay for it. She underscored that the objective of the plan was to remain compliant with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and that long-term community growth was not the driver for the budget. Additionally, it was impossible to know what types of development would arrive over the next few years and how much in SDCs they would be charged. Councilor Bettman said she understood some of the complexities but asserted that it was “also very simple.” She reiterated her concern that ratepayers would have to “foot the bill” for growth accommodat- ing capacity enhancements. She understood the written material as having said even though some of the bond proceeds could be paid off by SDCs, there would still be a gap between the revenue and the need. She wondered if there was a plan to increase SDCs so that “they would pay” for the increased capacity of the system. Ms. Smith replied that at this time the methodology for SDC calculation had been prepared following the letter of the ORS statute. She said it had also been developed with the oversight of a citizen advisory committee and adopted by the jurisdictions. She explained that further review of the SDC MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting methodology was possible, but MWMC did not have discretion to raise the SDCs except for inflationary factors without an amendment consistent the statute. Councilor Bettman alleged that there were “lots of ways” modifiers were built in to the recalculation of SDCs. She averred that choices that had been made resulted in an inadequate SDC. She asserted that the City had a policy dictating that growth pay its own way and that the MWMC budget was in conflict with that policy. She said it was not that difficult to engage in the process to increase SDCs. Roll call vote; the motion to ratify the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission FY07 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. Regarding Item F, Councilor Poling recalled that the council discussed changing the maximum time for the Public Forum at its process session. He said that while he valued the Public Forum, he felt the councilors owed it to the people who voted them into office to ensure of the conclusion of its business. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend Section 1.05 of the Eugene City Council Operating Agreements to read that the Public Forum should not exceed 45 minutes unless it was extended by a majority council vote. Councilor Kelly did not believe that the council settled on a time limit. He noted the proposals ranged between 30 and 90 minutes for Public Forum. He could not support the amendment in the face of the recent lengthy Public Forum segments of the council meetings. He noted that there had been some sentiment to adding a third Monday meeting devoted to public hearings. Council Coordinator Lynda Rose recalled that when the council discussed adding a meeting, it was determined that it would take several months to implement and it was possible that some trial meetings could be held to see how feasible such a change would be. She said the decision to change the operating agreements to reflect this potential addition was thought to be subsequent to this trial period. City Manager Taylor indicated that he favored the additional meeting. He said there had been a discussion of this possibility at both the Executive Managers’ meeting and regular agenda-setting meeting in an effort to anticipate how staff should prepare. He was not yet able to propose a strategy because of other pressing items of business, most notably the budget. Councilor Ortiz said she felt very passionate about people being able to come before the council. She could not support the amendment as she did not wish to restrict the Public Forum. She supported the idea of convening a third meeting devoted solely to public hearings. Councilor Taylor did not want to restrict the time for people to speak. She added, however, that she felt somewhat hesitant about holding a third meeting. Councilor Pryor observed that the issue before the council was one of a proper balance. He did not want meetings to “go on endlessly” because of public input, but if there was an issue around which there was a lot of passion, the council should hear it. He felt that 60 minutes was an appropriate amount of time for the Public Forum. He suggested that the council allow for up to 60 minutes and hopefully there would not be many issues that would inspire a greater amount of participation. He was reluctant to add a third Monday meeting for public hearings unless the council was hearing an abundance of public testimony on a regular basis. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling did not wish to de-emphasize the importance of public input at the forums. He believed it was important to hear from the public. He said there were other ways, with modern technology, for people to be heard. He still preferred a 45-minute limit. Regarding a possible third meeting, he pointed out that some of the public hearings were time-sensitive and some of them did not elicit any testimony. He did not believe that scheduling a meeting for public hearings only was the wisest use of council time. Councilor Solomon said she would like to retain the option to reduce speaking time in order to accommo- date more people. She was uncertain as to whether the council reached a conclusion on this. She commented that it may become necessary to vote at process sessions in order to have a clearer idea of what conclusions were reached. City Manager Taylor recalled hearing a strong sentiment at the process session that the council not limit testimony to less than three minutes. Councilor Kelly remembered majority council support, though not through a formal vote, for maintaining the three-minute time limit. Councilor Papé commented that this was the balance. He thought it was wise to adjourn the meetings at 10 p.m. because weary councilors were not at their best to extrapolate information and make decisions. He preferred having an additional meeting as opposed to staying beyond 10 p.m. Councilor Pryor wished to delineate between the Public Forum and public hearings. He believed the forum was a privilege and not a right; he opposed letting an entire meeting be taken up by the forum. He suggested that the council take a list of names on a first-come, first-serve basis and then, at 60 minutes, close the forum. Roll call vote; the motion to amend the Council Operating Agreements to limit the Public Forum to 45 minutes instead of 60 minutes failed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Papé voting in favor. Councilor Bettman supported voting at process sessions. As for keeping the Public Forum to an hour, she asked if the City Council was willing to cut off the list at 20 speakers. She did not want people to wait to speak and then find out they could not. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item F, adoption of Resolution 4872 amending Eugene City Council Operating Agreements and repealing Resolution 4828 passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Judicial Evaluation City Manager Taylor noted that this item had been discussed in a work session. He noted that the public hearing was a legal requirement. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak to the item, she closed the public hearing. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting Resolution 4875 Amending Systems Development Charge Methodology for Regional Wastewater System and Amending Resolution No. 4740 City Manager Taylor said Engineering Data Services Manager Fred McVey was available to answer questions. Councilor Bettman averred that the resolution before the council would decrease SDCs to the “biggest” contributors to the wastewater stream, which she felt were establishments involved with food preparation. She thought this was contradictory to information from the MWMC that indicated SDC revenue was not adequate to pay for its CIP. She thought it would be difficult to determine the range of uses in which a food service business engaged. She wanted language included that would restore the rate structure to the existing rate structure. She asked staff for language to amend the resolution before the item came back for action. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to testify, she closed the public hearing. Mr. McVey clarified that if the City Council decided that it did not favor the request to modify the SDCs in the manner the MWMC requested, the City Council would have to return it to the MWMC with a request to modify the resolution because it would have to be consistent between Eugene and Springfield. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. McVey stated that the item for the present meeting was a public hearing and a motion to amend could be made at the time of action. Councilor Kelly asked if a particular use, such as a restaurant, was judged to generate less gallons per day, would it be the expectation that a slightly higher pennies-per-gallon SDC rate would be charged in order to keep the funds that needed to be raised whole,. Mr. McVey said there was no specific way to anticipate the exact number and types of individual development at the time the rates were being set. He added that rates were set based on a system-wide projection. He commented that fine tuning of individual user categories was not factored back into the rate calculation. Regarding the rate schedule, Mr. McVey stated that it was originally adopted by a separate resolution and was separate from the methodology. Councilor Kelly asked if the MWMC considered a modified rate schedule. Mr. McVey replied that the commission was considering it in the coming week. Councilor Bettman commented that she hoped the council appointee, Councilor Poling, was “representing City policy in those deliberations as was called for in the approved Council Agreements.” She asked if the council could send the resolution back to the MWMC with a direction to set the SDCs at a rate where they were adequate to fund capacity enhancing improvements. City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that the council could send the entire methodology or pieces of it to the MWMC for revision or for dispute resolution under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that was approved one year earlier. He pointed out that the methodology and the rates were distinct questions. He was uncertain as to whether the questions he heard thus far pertained as much to the methodology as to the rates. He explained that the methodology had to do with allocation of impact according to the different uses and not with how much will be charged. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman declared the methodology that allocated the impacts to be inadequate. She was certain the methodology could be changed, as she had served on a committee that recommended SDC rates. She maintained that there was a “huge disconnect” between the SDCs collected and the capacity that would require funding. Councilor Papé asked if it would be possible for development to occur more rapidly than had been predicted and for the SDC revenues to exceed the immediate need for capacity enhancement. Mr. McVey replied that it would be possible to recover revenue more quickly than anticipated or than would be needed to pay for the projects as planned. He said any excess revenue would be placed in the reserve fund and used for later capacity enhancement projects. Councilor Bettman asked if she understood correctly that there was “quite a reserve” in SDCs. She noted that the Lane County Home Builders Association filed litigation against the MWMC. Ms. Smith responded that the budget for contingency reserves for the reimbursement fee was $1.1 million and the budget for the improvement fee was $1.75 million for the upcoming year. Councilor Bettman asked what the entire balance in the litigation reserve for the improvement fee. Ms. Smith reiterated that it was approximately $3 million. Councilor Bettman asked what portion of the projects that were required in order to maintain the NPDES permit were related to capacity enhancement. Ms. Smith replied that she would have to analyze the whole project list in order to make that determination. She explained that the 20-year project list was composed of numerous projects, each of which allocated a certain percentage to performance, i.e. compliance to capacity, including expansion and rehabilitation of existing facilities. She said each project had an engineer’s review that delineated how much of the project related to performance. She underscored that the first priority would be to retrofit existing equipment before building or installing new facilities for every project. She felt it would be very challenging to conduct the level of analysis that Councilor Bettman was requesting because the projects were all integrated and one project could not be pulled out of the mix. She stressed that the whole treatment process was connected. Councilor Bettman took issue with the population projections on which the project list had been based, as the actual certified population growth was 5,730 below the projection. Mayor Piercy called for a five-minute break at 9 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4876 Amending Local Stormwater Systems Development Charge Methodology Con- cerning Credits; and Amending Resolution No. 4740 City Manager Taylor said Fred McVey would present this item. Mr. McVey stated that the public hearing sought input on modifications to the stormwater SDC methodol- ogy. He said the modification incorporated credits for construction of water quality facilities associated with new development. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, felt there had been a lack of public involvement because the public did not understand the topic. He thought there should be “some kind of advance understanding.” He likened the hearing to an opportunity for him to testify on a “phantom issue.” He did not want fancy developments to be subsidized by other people. He thought the modifications would “streamline” the government process and he opposed this. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly asked if the goal of the credits was to encourage a reduction of impact to the storm water system and, if so, how would an improvement to water quality give rise to a reduced impact on the system. Mr. McVey said there was a general nexus to reduced impact associated with construction of private water quality facilities as it generally reduced the demand for public water quality facilities. He stated that there were public water quality facilities in the CIP and in the basin plans that were part of the SDC methodol- ogy. Councilor Kelly asked if any of the three cases that were eligible for the ten percent reduction were already receiving an SDC credit for what the developer was required to do under the stormwater standards. Councilor Bettman asked how the reduction in impact was calculated. Mr. McVey stated, in response to Councilor Kelly, that the credit was both a general recognition of reduced impact and a modest incentive to encourage people to go beyond the minimum requirement. He said there was no numerical calculation of reduced impact related to the water quality credit. Councilor Bettman commented that she was for providing an incentive to do so but she worried that the SDCs would not be enough to build out the needed capacity that came with development. She believed it would create a deficit in the resources available to address the capacity needs. Councilor Bettman asked that staff respond to the following questions in a memorandum: ? How would the credits be monitored and enforced? How many full time equivalent (FTE) would it take? Would it be complaint-driven? ? What is the existing SDC administrative component and would it need to be increased? She requested language that explained the purpose for the credits in the resolution adopting the SDC methodology document. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Establishing Local Criteria in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone and Adopting a Public Benefit Scoring System; Repealing Resolution 4851; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4923, an ordinance establishing local criteria in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone. Councilor Ortiz stated that the subject had been before the council several times. She asked staff if the Lane Board of County Commissioners adopted the local criteria and public benefit scoring system. City Manager Taylor replied that the commissioners had done so. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz supported the ordinance and hoped it would pass. She acknowledged the philosophical reasons some councilors had for not supporting it, but requested that the council not tinker with it at this point. She underscored that it had been vetted through a joint committee process. Councilor Bettman opposed the ordinance. She called it “community standards in name only.” She opined that the actual impact would be negligible. She disagreed that her opposition was philosophical in nature. She reiterated the reasons for her opposition. Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the work of the committee but thought the standards were “meaningless.” She opposed the whole Enterprise Zone. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. 7. ACTION: Resolution 4863 Approving the Parks, Recreation, and open Space Project and Priority Plan Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4863 ap- proving the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for being responsive to the public testimony and to council concerns that had been expressed. Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for the enormous amount of effort that had been invested in the plan. He asked legal counsel if it was possible to allow people to provide input or appeal during the methodology phase of the growth allocation numbers. Mr. Lidz responded that the plan before the council and the methodology were separate but related documents. He likened them to two legs of the plan and one had to go first. He said there was nothing to indicate that the same numbers in the plan were required to be used in the methodology. He added that when the methodology was adopted, there would be a 60-day period for appeal. Councilor Pryor ascertained that the council could still be working on adapting and adjusting to make sure the numbers, as they came in, were accurately reflected in the allocations. Mr. Lidz added that the statutes provided for a relatively involved process for the methodology. He clarified that the statutes dictated that the plan could be amended any time, but the process was more involved if the amendment would lead to an increase in SDCs. He affirmed that the resolution before the council would not constrain future actions after the 60-day period. Councilor Bettman expressed surprise at Mr. Lidz’ assessment of the action. She had thought the plan had costs associated with all of the projects. Carolyn Weiss, Parks Planning Manager, acknowledged that the plan did contain numbers, including costs, growth allocation percentages, and timelines, within the tables. Councilor Bettman observed that the background material indicated the resolution was cost-neutral. Ms. Weiss replied that the plan was not cost-neutral. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman asked how the passage of the bond measure would impact the calculation of the SDCs. She wondered if it would either not increase the existing capacity level of service or, because the property taxes would pay for the bond, it would come out of the calculation for new capacity. Johnny Medlin, Parks and Open Space Division Director, responded that the answer lay in the sequencing. He said if facilities were brought on line prior to the adoption of the SDC, it would be looked at as part of the existing inventory; but, if a project had not been brought on line, the capacity had not yet been increased. Councilor Bettman asked what the projected timeline was on the methodology. Mr. Medlin replied that it was hoped that the adoption of the SDC methodology would happen prior to November. Councilor Bettman opined that this was an unlikely timeline. She asserted that taxpayers would be providing, via property taxes, for new capacity to serve new growth through the bond measure and that the SDCs would ultimately be too low. Mr. Medlin said he could not make the same assumption that Councilor Bettman made. He underscored that the assumption in the project and priority plan was that there would be an SDC component and general fund component, with a balance between the two. Councilor Bettman commented that it depended on what methodology the SDC committee chose. She opined that it would be used to reduce the overall obligation of growth to pay its way and the burden would be shifted to the taxpayers. Mr. Medlin acknowledged that this was possible, but pointed out that ultimately the decision came back to the City Council and would be addressed by the council at that time. Councilor Papé asked if the project list would create better equity across the community for neighborhood parks. Mr. Medlin replied that in looking at the whole plan, it did create the equity. He noted that some of the inequities would be corrected at different times in the plan. He said in focusing on acquisition, the division would not be able focus in the earlier timeframe on some of the developed park issues the City was behind in addressing. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 13 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: May 24, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060524m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 6/8/06 rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 6/14 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 6/14 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 6/20 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 6/20 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 24, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. A. WORK SESSION: th Review of Draft Request for Proposals for 10 and Charnelton Development Site Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA) to order. City Manager Dennis Taylor announced that Denny Braud, Senior Development Analyst for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department (PDD) would present a draft Request th for Proposals (RFP) for the 10 and Charnelton development site. Mr. Braud noted that the site was no longer being referred to as the “Sears building site.” He recalled that at the council’s April 12 council work session, staff was directed to bring back a draft RFP for the sale and th development of the 10 and Charnelton site. He said staff consulted with the Planning Commission, as the council had asked, and also met with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). He reported that several general themes emerged from the discussions: ? The City should consider how any proposals submitted advanced the Downtown Plan and comple- ment other investments the City made in the area; ? The City should gauge how the proposals would contribute to the revitalization of downtown; ? The City should encourage creativity and should strive to attract a broad range of proposals for the site; ? A less prescriptive approach up front would have the greatest potential for capturing more interest and resulting in a greater variety of proposals; ? An emphasis should be placed on the quality and the amount of detail received from proposals in order to best gauge how each would contribute to the City’s goals for downtown. Mr. Braud related that the Planning Commission also discussed the emerging concept of opportunity sites th and how it might apply to the site. He said although the 10 and Charnelton site had not been designated as an opportunity site, the draft RFP did reference and encourage proposals that were consistent with the emerging opportunity site concepts. He underscored that the RFP, as proposed, was intentionally designed to inspire investor confidence in the site and in the downtown area. Mr. Braud listed some of the elements of the development objectives: ? To draw in an experienced development team with a track record of superior design; MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 1 Work Session ? To foster urban design elements that create an interesting and inviting pedestrian experience; ? To promote active uses, particularly on the ground floor; ? To encourage sustainable development components such as green building features; ? Timeliness of development; ? Financial feasibility; ? To bring a net financial return to the City. Mr. Braud conveyed staff’s recommendation, which was to have the RFP out by the end of the month, responses due at the beginning of August, and for the URA consideration and selection process to occur in September or October. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly wondered if the site had potential to be a City Hall site. He asked if it was possible to consider waiting on the RFP. He acknowledged that realistically, such construction would not likely begin before 2010. He was interested in determining whether his colleagues or staff had any interest in the site for that purpose. Mr. Kelly also questioned whether the 60-day turnaround time would be sufficient to get the quantity and quality of the proposals that was desired. Mr. Braud replied that both the 2002 version of this RFP and the RFP process that resulted in the Tate development project featured a similar turnaround. City Manager Taylor added that the RFP had been anticipated from the beginning of the year and several interested parties had already approached the City. Mr. Kelly averred that a less prescriptive RFP should not translate into a less detailed result. He wanted the development objectives to be responded to in detail. Mr. Kelly pointed to page 392 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), under B(2), and questioned the need for floor plans at the RFP stage. He supported the inclusion of elevations and a site plan. Mayor Piercy asked if the site had been considered as a city hall site for the last RFP process. Mr. Braud replied that it had been considered for both a courthouse and a city hall site in 1999, but had not been considered for it in the 2002 process. Ms. Taylor felt the site would make a great location for a city hall. She supported having a more prescrip- tive RFP because there were certain standards the City would uphold. She thought retail was one area in the requirements that should be less prescriptive. She asked what percentage of the retail space in the Broadway place was vacant. Mr. Braud estimated the vacancy rate to be 50 percent. Ms. Taylor thought the City should reconsider placing retail space on the ground floor. She asked if housing had been considered as a use for the ground floor. Mr. Braud responded that no retail uses were required, but active uses were encouraged on the ground level and this could include retail, housing, or office uses. Ms. Taylor commented that offices would not stay open at night and she thought that being open later should be “part of it.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman cited the last sentence of the first paragraph of page 389 of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and disagreed with the suggestion that any consideration be given to assembly or joint development of other adjacent parcels. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments regarding retail. She did not believe there should be any “public subsidy for commercial space.” She supported the encouragement of creativity, but wished to stress that the council had a responsibility to determine the “highest and best use” for a public piece of property. She thought the best use for the property would be housing as it would bring more people to the downtown. She asserted that private developers shied away from this type of development unless there was a public subsidy. Ms. Bettman averred that mixed-use did not need to mean there would be a solid strip of one type of use. She thought there were many successful high-density residential developments in thriving sections of other cities that contained mixes of retail and office uses interspersed with residences. She opined that too much retail space would lead to “over-commercialization.” Ms. Bettman maintained that opportunity siting, as forwarded from the council, was all residential. She felt exceptions could be made for a “corner shop or salon” but basically the intention was to increase residential density. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the RFP for the sale and develop- th ment of the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street development site, and direct the City Man- ager to issue a request for proposals consistent with the preliminary schedule included in the draft RFP, with final review of the RFP responses and approval of a project for the site provided by the Urban Renewal Agency. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the ‘Development Objectives’ to in- clude: “As a publicly solicited project, with the potential for public subsidies and incentives, this development addresses the needs of the community. More housing units and varied housing options are needed to accommodate projected population demographics. Central housing is a key element in the Growth Management Policies and the Downtown Plan. Downtown housing is essential for creating the critical mass of residents to support re- tail; and to concentrate populations where services already exist within walking distance; and where transit and pedestrian amenities are easily and efficiently available. Housing downtown requires public sector support in order to be competitive. Proposals for the site will recognize this development site as a rare opportunity to address the significant need for downtown housing units by providing for multi-storied, very high density hous- ing, preferably accommodating ownership options as well as affordable units.” Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to insert the word ‘preferred’ before the sentence beginning with ‘proposals for the site. . .’ The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly indicated his support for the amendment. He cited several successful housing projects in the downtown area and said he believed housing in that area to be a “cornerstone.” He noted the RFP would not require, but rather would strongly encourage the construction of housing at the site. City Manager Taylor understood the amendment to preclude all other uses of the site. He said the addition of the word ‘preferred’ clarified that it meant to encourage the development of housing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Solomon ascertained from staff that the amendment would not require housing-only proposals. She stressed that she did not want to hamstring development or lose out on an opportunity with a developer who did not want to build housing. Mr. Pryor echoed Ms. Solomon’s sentiments. Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The motion to approve the amendment passed, 7:0 (Mr. Papé had not yet arrived at the meeting). Ms. Bettman indicated that she had more changes she wished to make to the document. Ms. Bettman moved to change the first point on page 390 of the AIS under Active Uses, as follows (changes indicated in bold): “1. Multiple stories with active ground floors …” Mr. Kelly understood that the floor/area ratio (FAR) for the site was 2.0 so there would be no way the site could be developed without multiple stories. He said the amendment would be redundant. Ms. Bettman averred that there was a caveat that some flexibility in the plan or zoning would be allowed for a proposal that met development objectives. Mr. Kelly pointed out that it would take a land use code change to reduce the FAR. Ms. Bettman withdrew her amendment. Ms. Bettman moved to change the second point on page 390 of the AIS under Active Uses to read, as follows: “2. Very high density residential, particularly ownership housing.” The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the third point on page 390 of the AIS under Active Uses to read, as follows: “3. Major employment center for very high-quality jobs and extended hours of occu- pancy.” Ms. Solomon commented that it would not be known for certain at the time of the RFP who would be the occupant. She did not believe it was within the purview of the council to dictate the hours an employment center should be open. She thought it could become a limiting factor for proposals that would be submitted to the City. Ms. Bettman averred that her amendment merely reinforced the language in the Downtown Plan. Mr. Poling pointed out that the sentence before the point Ms. Bettman wished to amend indicated that this applied to “preferred projects” and was not absolute. Mr. Pryor shared his reluctance to keep “adding more words.” He did not think the language needed to include subjective terminology such as “very high quality.” Ms. Bettman asked what the language in the community standards for the Enterprise Zone had been. Mr. Braud replied that it had defined the jobs as having a living wage as compared to a benchmark. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Papé arrived at 12:26 pm. Ms. Solomon reiterated that a business that ultimately rented from the owner of the development would not be something the City could determine in advance. Ms. Taylor remarked that if the City provided a subsidy, it would be “good” to require a living wage. She also supported the inclusion of language regarding having extended hours. She wanted to increase the nighttime population of the downtown area in order to make the area safer. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé, and Mr. Pryor voting in op- position. The Mayor cast a vote in favor of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy opined that the amendment would not “hogtie” anyone. Mr. Papé commented that it was his understanding that subsidies were a possibility but were not absolutely a part of the package. Ms. Bettman pointed to language on page 389 that indicated a preferred development team would possess a “strong relationship with key tenants” and asserted that this assumed that tenants would be retail. Mr. Braud responded that a person who came to the table with a tenant “in hand” would make a better proposal. as it was a benefit to the development to have a strong and desirable tenant. He said a “spec” building with office and retail with no tenants identified would be less attractive. Ms. Bettman asked what likelihood there was that anyone would speculate in a building with no tenants. Mr. Braud replied that it was unlikely but possible. Ms. Ortiz was comfortable with the language as written. She thought a desire to know who the tenants would be would benefit the RFP process. Mr. Kelly agreed that the sentence added nothing and could be perceived as restricting the sort of proposals the City was willing to consider. He suggested it be stricken. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the Development Objectives to de- lete the third point regarding a strong relationship with key tenants. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman opined that “preempting City Hall” might be ill-conceived. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The Mayor adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and convened the meeting of the City Council at 12:26 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Collaborative Process to Identify a Transportation Solution for West Eugene and the FY06-FY09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) City Manager Taylor thanked the council for its forbearance for allowing the work session on this item so that the council could align with the results of the Osprey Group’s conflict assessment and so that staff could comply with council direction in time to bring the discussion about the collaborative process to the next meeting of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He asked City Engineer Mark Schoening, to provide an overview. Mr. Schoening reviewed the process to-date. He stated that subsequent to the motion the City Council passed which directed the City Manager to scope a process for a transportation solution for West Eugene, the Fiscal Year (FY) 06-09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) had not been approved and was still not approved, though there had been numerous amendments to the FY05-07 MTIP to keep critical projects moving forward. He related that at the last meeting, the MPC received a report from Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) staff outlining options for moving forward with either the proposed FY06-09 MTIP or a new FY07-11 MTIP. He noted, regarding the latter, that this was the new way such programs were put together under the recent federal transportation legislation. He said MPO staff also discussed the consequences of not having an adopted MTIP and what that would mean to member jurisdictions. Mr. Schoening discussed the Osprey Group’s findings, which included three options for moving forward: 1. Proceed with the current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had undertaken for the West Eugene Parkway (WEP); 2. Have a heightened commitment to public engagement in the WEP. 3. Form a collaborative process. Mr. Schoening reported that the Osprey Group concluded that a collaborative process could best address the transportation issues in West Eugene. Mr. Schoening stated that the action requested of the council was to direct the council representatives to the MPC to propose a resolution for adoption by the MPC that would essentially adopt the FY06-09 MTIP, moving the WEP to the last year of that cycle, would include MPC endorsement and participation in a collaborative process, would request that ODOT delay conclusion of its NEPA process on the WEP until the collaborative process had concluded, and would stipulate that ODOT consider the results of the process. He said the other part of the motion addressed the funding mechanism by directing the City’s representatives to the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), through the City Manager, to submit an application for Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funding in the amount of $200,000 to fund the collabora- tive process. He added that, assuming an affirmative vote on the motion before the council, the next step would be for City staff to bring this up before the Transportation Planning Committee on May 25 so that it was apprized of what would occur on the MPC’s June 8 agenda. He said staff would also request to have this item on the agenda for the June 7 meeting of the Citizen Advisory Committee to the MPC. Mayor Piercy thanked staff for working hard to put the wording together for the council. She reported that Congressman Peter DeFazio and Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski expressed their support for the collaborative process. She said many members of the environmental community were contacted and expressed support for the process. The Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce expressed its support as well. She commented that whichever side one favored with regard to the WEP, it was a “leap of faith.” She predicted the result would be an alternative solution that would better meet everyone’s objectives. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor’s assessment. He clarified that the Eugene representatives put forth a motion at the November MPC meeting that would have adopted the MTIP without the WEP and it had not been supported. He opined that he and the Mayor had not been obstructing other projects. Mr. Kelly felt the resolution represented the only chance the City had to avoid years of litigation regarding the WEP. He said if the collaborative process was “the hope,” it was important to find out what would bring the other agencies to the table. He thought ODOT was afraid the funding for completion of its current environmental work would vanish if the NEPA process was discontinued and, in that case, some repayment of millions of dollars would be required. He stated that the resolution would move the WEP out to the end of the MTIP and would stave off ODOT’s concerns. Ms. Bettman asked for a specific definition of ‘collaborative process.’ City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the way the resolution used it referred to the process laid out in the Osprey Report. Ms. Bettman declared that language to be not specific. Mr. Klein stated that if a court were ever to review the resolution, it would likely only look at the Osprey Report. He said, beyond that, a court would perhaps look at a dictionary definition of ‘collaborative process.’ Mayor Piercy stated that there was a specific process used by United States Institution for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR) facilitators to bring diverse communities to the table and work together toward mutual resolution. Ms. Bettman opined that the collaborative process would be dictated by the Osprey Group. Mayor Piercy disagreed. She maintained that it would be facilitated by the group and not dictated by it. City Manager Taylor explained that should the resolution be adopted by the council and the MPC, the City would initiate a process to hire people, possibly the Osprey Group and possibly another group. Ms. Bettman asked who would initiate the process. City Manager Taylor replied that the partners in the assessment through the MPC would initiate it. Mr. Kelly underscored that the rules would remain the same; therefore, the City of Eugene would have veto power over those rules. City Manager Taylor added that the other jurisdictional partners would welcome a process in which they were part of the design of the collaborative process from its origin. Ms. Bettman conveyed her dissatisfaction with previous collaborative efforts with the MPC or the MPO. She opined that the only hope for the process would be for it to be a standard process that was objective and neutral to which the community would adhere. She wanted it to be outside of the existing “power struggle.” Ms. Bettman asked when the next MTIP update would occur. Mr. Schoening replied that the FY05-07 MTIP ended at the end of FY07. He stated that without an approved update, the jurisdictions would be without an MTIP after September 30, 2007. He reiterated that there were two actions before the MPC: 1) to move the WEP out to FY09 in the MTIP for FY06-09; and 2) to adopt the FY06-FY09 MTIP. Ms. Bettman interjected her next question, asking when the WEP could “show back up in the MTIP.” Mr. Schoening reiterated that the intent would be to push the WEP to FY09 in order to allow for the collabora- tive process. Ms. Bettman declared that the resolution did not say that. Mr. Klein cited the section of the resolution, Attachment A in the AIS, in which it stated the following under “Be it resolved”: MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 7 Work Session “(2) The FY06-09 MTIP, Exhibit B, as modified by the reprogramming of the WEP to FY09...” Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that ODOT would stop working toward the record of decision. Mr. Schoening reiterated that the motion would request that ODOT not conclude the NEPA process, which was the record of decision, prior to the end of the collaborative process. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that ODOT would continue to work on the process. Tom Schwetz, Transportation Program Manager for the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), explained that postponing the completion of the NEPA process would imply that they would continue to work toward the drafting of the record of decision. He said this still had to be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for its approval. He thought ODOT would be asked to defer sending the final draft of the record of decision to the FHWA for approval. Mr. Schoening pointed out that the motion requested that ODOT include the results of the collaborative process as part of the NEPA process. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant the results would automatically be implemented. City Manager Taylor responded that it depended on the nature of what the consensus recommendation that arose from the collaborative process. In response to further questioning from Ms. Bettman, Mayor Piercy stated that the hope was for people with various points of view to come together and arrive at a configuration that would be acceptable. Ms. Bettman found the language regarding the acceptability of the result to be vague. She asked what would happen if the result was a modified route through West Eugene. Mr. Schoening replied that if it met the existing purpose and need of the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), it could move forward within the NEPA process. He said if it was outside of the issue and need, it would trigger a new environ- mental process. Mr. Kelly added that it would also have to be included in a subsequent RTP or MTIP if it was different than the project that was currently in the MTIP. Mr. Klein stated that other steps “in addition to ODOT” would be required if it was too far outside of the alignment approved by the voters in 1986. If that was the case, a new vote would be required for the City of Eugene to participate in the project. Also, if the proposed route was outside the alignment in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP), it would require amendments to that plan, which the council would have to approve. He underscored that there were a number of steps that would have to be taken if the project was different from what ODOT had been analyzing thus far. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Kelly and Mayor Piercy for working through this process. She indicated she would support the motion when it was put on the table. Mr. Kelly pointed out that one way or another the process would have to be affirmed by the jurisdictions of the MPC. He observed that there would be no collaborative process without the MPC. Mr. Pryor stated that the transportation problem in west Eugene had to be resolved. He supported the WEP, but it had been stalled for 20 years. He remained supportive of what the WEP could do. He believed in collaboration but felt there should be limits on what it could do. He averred that the process could not “go on endlessly” nor could it be prohibitively expensive. He wanted to be clear in the resolution that there would be a placeholder on the money. He also wished to ensure that the collaborative process was truly th collaborative. He recalled that a significant collaborative process had been used in the project to widen 6 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 8 Work Session th and 7 avenues and that had culminated in no result. He did not wish to see this scenario repeated. He expressed his willingness to approve of the process with the caveat that it be sincere and have a tangible result for the community. Ms. Solomon wished to ensure that whoever served on the committee would come to the table with the understanding at the outset of the process that there was a problem to be solved and would not spend time arguing about whether or not there was a traffic issue. It was important to her that committee members signed on to a statement that indicating they would support the result. She asked who would be on the collaborative committee. City Manager Taylor related that the Osprey Group suggested a group of 25 “wise people” who represented stakeholders from the various points of view. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, City Manager Taylor surmised that the committee would be selected by the interjurisdictional partners. Mr. Papé opined that whatever track the community ended up pursuing could bring about litigation. Mr. Papé still perceived the option before the council as going against the will of the voters, as 60 percent of voters opposed an alternate process for the WEP. He did not regret the hiring the Osprey Group because he thought it could inform a ballot measure asking voters to consider whether or not to embark on another process. While he would be in favor of incorporating it into a ballot measure, he could not support the resolution. Ms. Taylor expressed skepticism regarding the outcome of the process. She wondered where the committee members would be drawn from and how it would be determined whether they were wise. She heard the Osprey Group recommendation that the committee not be made up with the usual people who involved themselves in such issues. She did not think there were people in the community who did not already have some preconceived notions about the project. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein clarified that a significant change to the route would fall outside of what the voters had approved. He stated that the voters did not have to approve something under the charter in order for ODOT to build a road. He explained that the charter indicated that if the City of Eugene was going to participate in some way, then the voters would have to approve it. He was uncertain what the solution would be from the collaborative process, but if it was a significant enough change, it would require a vote. He noted that there had been a number of small changes in the two decades the WEP had been under consideration, moving parts of the route a quarter mile in one direction or another, and those changes did not require a vote. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the resolution was approved. Mr. Schoening replied that Principal Civil Engineer Chris Henry, Senior Transportation Planner Lisa Gardner, and he would bring the resolution to the Transportation Planning Committee to brief it on the vote. Subsequent to this, it would be presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to the MPC on June 7 and then to the MPC itself on June 8. Ms. Taylor asked who served on the CAC. Mr. Schwetz responded that 15 members served on the CAC. Mr. Kelly noted some of the members of that body. Mr. Poling shared Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon’s sentiments. He also agreed with Mr. Papé that the council had an obligation to honor the will of the voters. He was glad to see that the intent of the proposed resolution was to have the funding placeholder remain and that the NEPA process would be continued. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 9 Work Session expressed some concern that the resolution lacked language that ensured that the result would be an agreement that would be a binding document. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the council’s representative to the MPC request the MPC to adopt the proposed resolution shown as Attachment A and that the City Manager direct the City’s representatives on the TPC to submit to the TPC a project appli- cation for $200,000 in STP-U funds for the collaborative process to identify a transporta- tion solution for West Eugene that has widespread understanding and acceptability and that the council’s representatives to MPC support that expenditure of STP-U money when the matter comes to MPC. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the fifth WHEREAS clause to add to the end of the clause the following: “…with the understanding that the process would not exceed 18 months in duration or $200,000.” Mr. Poling spoke to his amendment. He said he found it difficult to understand how someone could look for funds without knowing the cost or duration of a project. He felt the process could “go on until 3005” if no one put their foot down. He could not support the resolution without the amendment. Ms. Bettman wondered if environmentalists would support the collaborative process if they knew the incentive for collaboration was being “undermined” by programming the WEP into FY09. She did not understand why the decision was being “rushed.” She had many questions that she felt were not yet answered. She indicated she would vote against it until she felt her questions were answered to her satisfaction. Mr. Kelly opined that not taking the next step would be “as good of a definition of insanity” as he could find. He believed that action was necessary before the exact dollar amount and timeline would be known. He averred that “through no fault” of the council and Mayor, a number of the “powers that be” from other jurisdictions perceived the MPC to be at an impasse that threatened its existence. He felt that if the council did not come forward with a way out of the situation, it could end up with a worse scenario. He would not support the amendment. He submitted that the questions that Ms. Bettman needed answers for would be answered through the collaborative process. Ms. Taylor conveyed her opposition to the amendment. She asked if there was a strong reason to vote on the resolution at the present meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that there would not be another work session opportunity to consider this issue before the MPC met. He said based on the MPC’s procedures, should the motion pass, the resolution would be to direct staff to bring it back the following month. He felt this would give the process time for some of the details to be worked through. Ms. Taylor was concerned because the WEP was still in the MTIP. She preferred to wait to vote. She asked if “something terrible” would happen if it did not go to the June MPC meeting. Mr. Schwetz stated that one objective was to get the FY06-09 MTIP, as submitted to the MPC in November 2005, passed before the federal government declared it overdue. He related that the federal government had instructed the MPO that the MPC’s August meeting would be the last chance to adopt the FY06-09 MTIP. Mr. Pryor believed the amendment was necessary for all of the same reasons that Mr. Kelly believed it was not. He felt time was something in short supply. He thought if the process were to take longer than 18 months it would not likely work. He wanted to place some certainty on it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Papé asked if the MPC could have a “special meeting.” Mr. Schwetz replied that the MPC had nothing that would keep it from convening a special meeting aside from practical issues. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; councilors Poling, Papé, Pryor, and Solomon vot- ing in favor and councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in support of the amendment and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman observed that the process had gone on for years. She said the MPC was a “conflict resolution body” and the City of Eugene was at an impasse there. She opined that the MPC was not really interested in conflict resolution. She felt the resolution took the WEP out in name only, because ODOT would continue its work on the process. She could not support the resolution because her questions had not been answered. She opined that the research would not be neutral because of MPC and TPC oversight. She thought the resolution would put all of the pieces in place to come up with the same conclusion that the community had already “always come up with.” Ms. Ortiz expressed discomfort with having the WEP back in the project list, but she wanted to have faith that the process could reach a resolution. She reiterated her support for the resolution. She noted that she had not supported the amendment because she did not want to place time constraints on the committee as it could hamper their ability to come to a decision with full understanding. Mr. Kelly averred that the resolution represented the only reasonable plan. He did not see any path that anyone proposed within legal parameters that had a chance of addressing transportation in any reasonable timeframe. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the item. The motion failed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in favor. Ms. Bettman opined that if the resolution was a harbinger of the collaborative process it was a “bad omen.” She did not feel she had been allowed enough time to review the materials and ask questions. She said if the collaborative process would “cater to one faction and ignore another” it would not be a collaborative process. She thought the motion to table should have been approved. She opposed the resolution. Mr. Papé said he would oppose the resolution because he believed it to be counter to the will of the voters. Mayor Piercy expressed remorse that some councilors did not feel there had been a lot of collaboration “working at this moment.” She believed there had been a “tremendous amount” of collaboration. She hoped the council would have the confidence in the two Eugene representatives to the MPC and that they heard what was being said and would work on behalf of the City. She called for the vote. The motion to approve the resolution passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 11 Work Session City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 24, 2006 Page 12 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: May 31, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 6/15 Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 6/20 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 6/20 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 6/20 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 6/20 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 31, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION The council held an executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 192.660(2)(i). Following the executive session, Mayor Piercy called the council into open session. B. WORK SESSION: City Manager Performance Evaluation City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked the council for its evaluation, saying the council held a useful and candid discussion during the executive session that touched on relationships and communication and which he thought created interaction that would be useful in addressing the council’s concerns. Looking back over the year, City Manager Taylor noted the value of the council’s priorities in terms of the direction they provided to staff in the work it did and in the budget he submitted to the Budget Committee. He thought the annual council retreat had also been useful. He was generally pleased with the progress of the organization in implementing the council’s priorities while doing the day-to-day work of governing. He was proud of the hard work done by the council and the discipline and focus of tough decisions that placed the organization in good financial position for the time being. Continuing, City Manager Taylor said he continued to be impressed by the commitment and quality of work done by the vast majority of employees, and by the recognition the organization received for the efforts of both individuals and work groups. He cited Public Works Director Kurt Corey’s recognition as one of the top ten public works directors in the United States as an example. He said the organization was committed to being an outstanding organization and there was room to improve. City Manager Taylor emphasized his commitment to meeting the council’s expectations with regard to his performance and to improving his relationship-building and communication efforts. He said he would work to ensure that his recommendations to the council were clear and that he was clear as to the direction he received from the council. He looked forward to improving his individual working relationships with all members of the council and the mayor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 31, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Solomon said that City Manager Taylor was the consummate City Manager. She perceived his role as two-fold in that he both looked out for the organization and implemented the decisions of the council. She believed that latter task included keeping the council from making bad decisions, and she appreciated the “push back” from the manager when he thought the council was moving in the wrong direction. She also appreciated the monthly meetings she had with the manager, and looked forward to working with him another year. Ms. Ortiz thanked the manager for his time in Eugene as the council’s employee. She said it had been challenging to evaluate the manager on the performance on the entire organization. When the council gave direction to the manager, he gave direction to the organization, and that was where she perceived some difficulty in communication was occurring. She supported the manager and thought he did a good job, but some things were lacking. For example, the prohibition on council interactions with staff was an issue for her as City employees were also the council’s constituents. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the work City Manager Taylor and challenged him to take more time for himself and to take better care of himself. Mr. Kelly also thanked the manager for his hard work for the City of Eugene. He had no doubt as to the manager’s commitment, enthusiasm, and doggedness. He appreciated those qualities, and that, along with the fact he liked City Manager Taylor as an individual, made it difficult for him to offer criticism. However, this was his third evaluation of the manager and he continued to be frustrated that some fundamental things had not changed with regard to the relationship between the manager and council. Mr. Kelly said the council-manager of government “was fine” with him. For it to work, however, the council and manager must feel like a team. He did not feel like he was part of a team most of the time that City Manager Taylor had been in Eugene. He liked the concept of policy governance but its success depended on having the council’s policy direction followed, and on feedback that indicated the policy was implemented as directed or staff had encountered a roadblock in its implementation. Too often, the feedback loop was lacking. Mr. Kelly believed that City Manager Taylor did a great job on internal organizational operations. However, that was overshadowed by his dissatisfaction with the breakdowns in implementing council policy and the poor relationships between the staff and some members of the council. Mr. Kelly was pleased to hear that City Manager Taylor planned to revise his policy regarding communica- tion between the council and staff. Mr. Kelly referred to remarks made by the mayor in the executive session with regard to “proactivity” and said he felt that was most wanting in the areas of planning and development, particularly in community development. He thought the City should be more proactive, and not merely wait for the “latest proposal to come in the transom.” Ms. Taylor said she also liked City Manager Taylor as a person and respected him. She had sympathy for his having to “work for nine bosses.” She knew City Manager Taylor had a difficult job and worked hard. However, she believed that City Manager Taylor usurped the council’s role as policy makers. She thought MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 31, 2006 Page 2 Work Session that time after time, the City Manager tried to make policy and influence policy by lobbying the council in public session. She also felt he initiated policy at times. There were things the council wanted to do that were forgotten, while the manager’s priorities were completed almost before the council became aware of them. Ms. Taylor said that the manager gave the council lists of what had been done instead of a plan of what could be done. That seemed like justification rather than progress. Ms. Taylor found the manager to be evasive when asked questions and that he made excuses instead of answering questions. He was very protective of his power, which she thought was perhaps a “disease of city managers” and he used the charter to avoid sharing his power. Ms. Taylor clarified with City Manager Taylor that he was proposing to let the police auditor hire and fire his or her own staff to the maximum extent possible under the charter. Ms. Taylor was somewhat concerned about that as she would prefer the manager to think about giving away all the power he could rather than worry about the power he could keep under the charter. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about crowded agendas, and said that items that should have been the subject of work sessions were wrongly included on the Consent Calendar. Ms. Taylor thought that follow-up on requests for information from the public, council, and neighborhood leaders was lacking. Mr. Poling complimented City Manager Taylor on the work he had done over the previous year. He thought that the deficiencies brought up the previous year had been addressed but perhaps needed more work. He was impressed with what he perceived to be a better line of communication between the council and staff. He also liked that the manager offered the council multiple options in the Agenda Item Summary prepared for council agendas. Mr. Poling thought the manager was doing the best he could for the community following what he thought was the council’s direction, which sometimes changed in the middle of a process, leaving the manager to “turn the ship around.” Mr. Poling respected the work that City Manager Taylor did and said that others in the community made the same observation Ms. Taylor had about his nine bosses and “herding cats.” Mr. Poling expressed appreciation that City Manager Taylor was copying the council on his e-mail correspondence with the media, avoiding “early morning surprises with the morning paper.” He thought City Manager Taylor handled a recent personnel incident in a professional and efficient manner and as far as he was concerned the incident was over. Mr. Poling hoped the manager would use the comments made during the executive and open sessions in a positive manner that led to improvement in the upcoming year. Mr. Papé also thanked the manager and acknowledged his dedication to public service and the community. He said the manager worked hard and the council was aware of that. He expressed appreciation for the respect the manager earned inside the organization, and his organizational and management skills. With regard to council-staff relations, Mr. Papé did not think that in general, those relations were poor; he thought rather that some councilor-staff relations needed improvement. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 31, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Papé agreed with Ms. Taylor’s remarks on agenda setting and raised the issue of his request for a work session on the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards, which had yet to be held. Mr. Papé suggested that the City Manager Taylor think of each of the councilors in the same way he considered the Assistant City Manager, maintaining there should be that kind of “candid” communication occurring “all the time” within the bounds of the charter. At times, he felt that when the manager did not agree with him on an issue, “maybe some information is withheld” or the manager became defensive. He thought the information should come out, regardless of how the manager thought the council would react. Mr. Pryor thanked the manager for the job he had done. He thought the manager had done a good job in the majority of the performance categories and, by association, City employees had also done well, as both were dependent on the other’s success. Mr. Pryor said many of the council’s comments focused on communication between the manager and the council, both as individuals and as a body. He pledged to help work on making communication as smooth as possible as it related to sharing information, answering questions, and fielding requests. Mr. Pryor asked if increased trust created greater communication, or greater communication created increased trust. He suggested that for practical purposes, if the council and manager began to work on more effective and productive conversations, it would lead to greater trust between the manager and the council as a working team, which was a concept he liked. He said that good communication would help to create the trust to make that team work more effectively. Ms. Bettman said she admired the manager’s energy and the commitment he brought to the job. She appreciated the many City employees who worked so hard for the community. Ms. Bettman noted that, if the mayor’s ratings were eliminated from the total, the manager received an average rating of 2.99 on a scale of 1-5. She thought that reflected philosophical divisions on the council, and the fact the manager aligned himself with “certain divisions and not others.” She thought it was worrisome that the manager did not have a better rating. Ms. Bettman said she had participated in several manager evaluations and had never been in the position where she had to be so critical of a manager’s performance. She asserted that her criticisms were very specific and that she had backed up each one of her ratings with at least one example. She added there were “many, many examples.” Ms. Bettman noted the evaluations the council received from the organization included only eight employees outside management. She considered that an “anemic” response rate given the number of employees. She thanked the employees who provided evaluations and asked the manager to address criticisms about the executive team not acting as a democracy, his lack of visibility in the organization, and assertions the organization was “polarized” and communication had lessened over the past few years. Mayor Piercy thanked the manager and staff for their work. She said that it seemed like every week, the City or its staff was recognized for excellence in performance, and she appreciated that. She commended the manager for the City’s current state of financial well-being. She commended the manager and Police Chief Bob Lehner for their investigation into the Eugene Police Department and pursuit of recommended improvements, and for their support of the independence of the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 31, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Piercy recognized the work that was being done to move the council’s goals forward, and looked forward to working with consultants and community members on making Eugene a great city for the arts and outdoors. Mayor Piercy said it was a real coup for Eugene to be name the site of the 2007 Olympic Trials and staff deserved credit for its participation in that effort. Mayor Piercy said she was pleased with the community outreach occurring in conjunction with a discussion of a new city hall. Mayor Piercy thanked the manager for his work with the City’s interjurisdictional partners in finding a collaborative way to resolve west Eugene traffic issues and protect wetlands. Mayor Piercy said in spite of recent disappointments in downtown, interest in the area remained strong and possibilities were good. She said that Eugene needed to ensure that downtown was safe and pleasant in the meantime. She looked forward to continued discussion of a permanent Farmers Market. Mayor Piercy commended staff for its continuing commitment to the council’s race and homelessness priorities, and for working to ensure Eugene was a welcoming community. She expressed appreciation that the manager was participating in one of the City Club’s study groups on race, and that he was willing to meet with those on both sides of an issue. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the hiring of Susan Muir as Planning and Development Director. Ms. Muir was very pleasant to work with and open to new and improved levels of public engagement. Mayor Piercy also was happy to see that that manager took the council’s focus on neighborhood organiza- tions as a key means of effective communication. Mayor Piercy said that roads remained a major issue and she looked forward to working with the manager on that. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to the staff for its commitment to the council’s sustainability goals, and said it was time for Eugene to do more in conjunction with its intergovernmental partners. She said that Eugene needed to “move up to a whole new level of commitment” as it faced climate change and fuel shortages. Mayor Piercy called on the council for a second round of comments. Referring to statements that the manager had “nine bosses,” Ms. Bettman said the manager had one boss, the council. As far as she knew, there was no manager response to a single councilor’s request. Referring to Mr. Kelly’s remarks about policy governance, Ms. Bettman shared an anecdote about a long- time married couple where big decisions were made by the husband and small decisions were made by the wife; after many years, there had not been a big decision yet. Ms. Bettman said in terms of carrying out council policy, if the policy reflected the organization’s priority, it was carried out. If it did not, the policy was obstructed, was subjected to interpretation, or was not carried out. She said examples could be found in her evaluation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 31, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman highlighted the issue of what she maintained were “legal contradictions.” The City had legal counsel who worked for the City Manager, not the council. The council had no way to respond to legal advice with which it disagreed unless it hired its own attorney. There had been several “glaring” inconsis- tencies in the information provided by legal counsel. City Manager Taylor thanked the council for its candid feedback in the executive and open session and said he looked forward to making progress in the areas identified. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 31, 2006 Page 6 Work Session