Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/22/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 22, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from May, City Council and City Manager Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She reported that she attended the annual police awards ceremony and congratulated the officers and civilians who were recognized at the event. She noted that it was Asian Pacific Heritage Month and she attended a martial arts presentation over the weekend. She announced that the council’s advice and direction on the West Eugene Parkway collaborative process would be sought at the May 25, 2006, meeting. Ms. Ortiz reported that she attended the Willamette Valley Folk Festival held at Cuthbert Amphitheater and was pleased to see the number of families in attendance at that venue. She invited councilors to participate with the Human Rights Commission at the We Are Bethel Celebration on June 3, 2006. Mr. Papé thanked staff for helping to find space for a youth center in downtown. He attended the police awards ceremony and found it to be a moving experience, particularly the awards to citizens who assisted officers with the apprehension of suspects. Mr. Poling said the Harlow Neighbors newsletters announced a second workshop for the Willakenzie Park discussion and the date was in error; the meeting was actually scheduled for Tuesday, May 30, at 6:30 p.m. at Monroe Middle School. He asked if there was an established schedule for routine park maintenance. City Manager Taylor said that in addition to a routine maintenance schedule established for all parks, the City responded to citizen concerns as they were raised. Mr. Kelly thanked City Manager Taylor and staff for approving the Hult Center as the site for the Japanese- American memorial. He mentioned that approximately $15,000 was still needed for the project. He asked the City Manager to provide the council with results of the Fairmount neighborhood and Agate Street traffic studies as soon as they were available. Ms. Taylor commented that she recently returned from a meeting of the Human Development Steering Committee for the National League of Cities where policy recommendations on immigration reform, long- term health care and concentrated poverty were discussed. She said the discussion of concentrated poverty emphasized the importance of keeping a middle class in the city and in Eugene’s case that meant keeping people close to downtown. She said the use of mixed-income housing, or inclusionary zoning, was another strategy she hoped the council would consider for both houses and apartments. She was concerned about permitting political statements from candidates in neighborhood newsletters and noted that statements from some candidates and not others were included in the Cal Young newsletter. She stated that charging interest MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 1 Work Session to landlords on unpaid rental fees was harassment and no interest should be charged once the late fee was paid. Ms. Solomon thanked those who participated in the tour of Golden Gardens Park and hoped all councilors could eventually visit the park. City Manager Taylor conveyed his thanks to the Budget Committee for its hard work and difficult decisions and to Kitty Murdoch, DeeAnn Hardt and Finance staff for their efforts. With reference to the candidate statements in the Cal Young newsletter, Mr. Papé pointed out that all candidates for all offices in the area were invited to provide statements. B. WORK SESSION: Judicial Evaluation Committee Report City Manager Taylor introduced Court Administrator Marilyn Nelson to present the Judicial Evaluation Committee’s report on Municipal Court Judge Wayne Allen. Ms. Nelson stated that a formal evaluation process was conducted once every four years and involved a committee of citizens appointed by the council. She described the evaluation process steps as set forth in the code and introduced Lane County Circuit Court Judge Kip Leonard to present the results of the evaluation on behalf of the committee. Judge Leonard provided an overview of the evaluation process. He said the Municipal Court was a very high volume court and handled about 31,000 case filings, exclusive of parking citations, annually. It was a very efficient court and handled issues of great significance to the community, both from the aspect of criminal behavior and the aspect of quality of life, requiring a very human touch. He said the evaluation instrument was sent to users of the Municipal Court, including defense attorneys, prosecutors, police traffic officers, interpreters, advocates, other judges of the court and court staff. He said the response rate was 24 percent and appeared to be representative of those surveyed. He said the survey and tabulated results were provided in the agenda packet and Judge Allen was rated highly overall by users of Municipal Court. He read some of the compliments from respondents and noted one comment regarding lack of community outreach efforts. He commented that judges faced restrictions on community outreach activities because of the need to appear impartial on all issues, which prevented them from taking a position on an issue. Despite those limitations, Judge Allen was a strong advocate for bilingual services and establishing a mental health court. He concluded by stating that Judge Allen saw a number of issues on the horizon and planned for the future of the court to effectively manage change; the committee recommended that Judge Allen be appointed to another four-year term. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments regarding the report. Mr. Kelly thanked Judge Leonard and the committee members for their work. He asked about a comment from a defense attorney in the evaluation that court staff obstructed access to case files. Ms. Nelson replied that court staff followed the City’s public information policy; it was not the practice to deny attorneys access to case files and requests were routinely honored. She was not certain what had occurred in the situation that was cited. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly asked why a defendant survey was conducted in 2002, 2003 and 2004 but not in 2005. Ms. Nelson said that because of budget constraints the survey, which had previously been done twice a year, was now done once each year. She said the lack of a survey in 2005 was due to a change in timeline for the distribution of the survey. She said a survey was recently completed but results were not available in time to include in Judge Allen’s evaluation. Mr. Papé complimented the council for requiring judicial reviews. Ms. Bettman also appreciated the evaluation process. She suggested that in order to increase the response rate from interested parties, the evaluation committee could conduct follow-up phone calls to encourage a higher response rate. Mayor Piercy also thanked the committee. She asked why such a small number of defense attorneys participated in the evaluation. Judge Leonard said that only a small number of attorneys practiced in Municipal Court because of the contract to provide public defender services and a high percentage of defendants were indigent; consequently, most defense attorneys in the community did not appear in Municipal Court or did not appear often enough to do a fair evaluation. C. WORK SESSION: Measure 37 Givings Tax City Manager Taylor said the council had been searching for a balanced and measured response to Measure 37 since it was passed by the voters. He said there had been two work session to discuss options. He introduced Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir and City Attorney Glenn Klein and complimented their efforts to develop innovative recommendations for the council. Mr. Klein highlighted the detailed information provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He said at its January 25, 2006, meeting, the council directed staff to consider Option 1 and a modified version of Option 3 of the four options presented. A staff team reviewed those two options, conducted financial analyses and concluded that Option 1 could be implemented without significant administrative costs and most of the money raised could be set aside for payment of Measure 37 claims. Option 3 would entail greater administrative costs to implement and a greater share of the revenue would not be available to pay claims. Continuing, Mr. Klein said the analysis used 2005 as an example year for implementation and found that as a result of upzonings, there was an increase of about $2.25 million of additional real market value. He said a tax imposed on just that upzoning value would result in $113,000 for each five percent of tax. He said that 2005 was a fairly typical year with 25 upzonings, but that number could vary from one year to another. He said the recommendation based on council direction to date and the ability to implement without significant administrative costs was that the council direct staff to draft an ordinance to implement Option 1 with the tax rate to be determined. He said the ordinance, which would involve amendments to Chapter 9, would go first to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the council. Both the commission and the council would hold public hearings and discussions on the draft ordinance. Mayor Piercy solicited comments and questions from the councilors. Mr. Kelly said that Measure 37, by requiring compensation but not providing funding for it, placed jurisdictions in the situation of not being able to do land use well unless they developed funding sources for those claims. He complimented staff for creative thinking and a thorough analysis of options. He initially MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 3 Work Session preferred Option 3 but acknowledged the challenges to implementation. He said he would support Option 1 and encouraged staff and councilors to consider whether a further-focused Option 3 could complement Option 1. He could accept a 20 to 25 percent tax rate to establish a reasonable fund to pay claims since the tax was only on the increase in value due to rezoning. He asked if urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions would always be covered by Option 1 or only in certain situations. Mr. Klein replied that a UGB expansion initiated by the property owner would be quasi-judicial and covered by Option 1. He said that an expansion initiated by the government was a legislative process and could be included in Option 1 if the council wished to capture those. Mr. Klein noted there was far more increase in value associated with bringing land into the UGB than with most rezonings. Mr. Kelly asked staff to explore the impact of including government-initiated UGB expansions under Option 1. Ms. Bettman commented that the City only had two current Measure 37 claims, but one of those already used considerable legal resources. She viewed the fund as a way to possibly offset those expenses as well as to pay claims. She appreciated the recommendation of Option 1 and said when the motion to direct staff was being considered she would propose an amendment to not limit it to citizen-initiated rezoning or changes in designation. She felt that was fair because people with large projects could have leverage to get the jurisdiction to initiate a zone change or UGB expansion that was not available to everyone. She cited several recent examples. She said because the jurisdiction was increasing the value of a property through legislative or quasi-judicial action, it was asking for a refund of a small portion of that benefit to come back to the City and offset and balance Measure 37 claims. She suggested it should be called a “givings recovery fee” or “benefit refund” instead of “givings tax.” Mr. Papé said that the recommendation of Option 1 seemed a reasonable approach to Measure 37 but was very concerned about burdening someone with a tax when the change that resulted in an increase in value was initiated by the jurisdiction. Mr. Pryor concurred with Mr. Papé’s concern and would support Option 1 in its current form where it applied to citizen-initiated changes only. He said that Measure 37 was a voluntarily initiated process and the givings tax mechanism should also be. Ms. Bettman appreciated concerns about zone changes initiated by the City and those would be covered under the legislative provisions of Option 3; however, in a situation where the City brought property into the UGB, the fee could be recovered either when the property was sold for a higher value or the land owner made an application to change the use, such as from farm land to residential. She thought those situations could be accommodated under Option 1 and would offer an amendment to delete references to citizen- initiated and include alternate language. She suggested 25 percent as the tax rate and expressed interest in an exemption for very small rezonings with an increase in value of less than $1,000. Mr. Poling was not certain he could support Option 1 unless it applied only to citizen-initiated rezonings. He asked if the percentage rate could remain unspecified until after the public hearings. Mr. Klein replied that it would be better to include a percentage to which people could react; the rate could always be changed later based on public input. Mr. Poling said he could support the option only if it applied to citizen-initiated changes and had a tax rate no higher than 25 percent. He said that no matter what it was called, it was still a tax and would be perceived as one by the public. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Klein clarified that the term “citizen-initiated” meant requested by the property owner because the rezoning would not become effective until the tax was paid. Ms. Taylor said she would support Option 1 with a 25 percent tax and Ms. Bettman’s amendment with the caveat that the tax would not be collected until the use changed. She felt that Option 3 was too expensive to implement. Mr. Papé thanked staff for a well written AIS. He asked if churches and nonprofit organizations would be exempt from the givings tax. Mr. Klein said the option did not contain any exemptions as written, although the council could direct staff to include specific exemptions. Mr. Papé asked when a property would have increased value on the tax rolls and provide increased revenue. Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill said that Lane County typically did not revalue property that had a change in use or plan designation until the County became aware that the change had actually occurred and that could be immediately or months or years later. He said typically the County was notified that a change occurred when there was a land use permit filed and the City transmitted that information to the County. He said it was not possible to rely on the County’s tax records to indicate the value at the current zoning or plan designation. Referring to Ms. Bettman’s proposal to not tax property brought into the UGB until it was sold, Mr. Papé said he could not agree with that if the new owner was going to keep the property in the same use, such as a homestead. Ms. Solomon said the option still felt like double taxation and she would not support it. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordi- nance for Option 1 with a flat tax percentage of a range and schedule a public hearing be- fore the Planning Commission and City Council on the draft ordinance. Ms. Bettman offered 25 percent as a friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon declined to accept the amendment. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to specify a flat tax of 25 percent. Ms. Bettman said the tax rate representing a starting point for discussion. She said that Measure 37 liability in terms of future claims would require a funding source. Mr. Kelly said that the rate would give the public something to react to during public hearings and he would support the amendment. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Ortiz voting in support, and Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend Option 1 as reflected in Attachment A by deleting the words “citizen-initiated” and “site-specific” and providing a triggering mechanism for nonsite-specific zone changes or Metro Plan or refinement plan changes of designation. Ms. Bettman explained that currently the option was site-specific and the issue of the UGB was a nonsite- specific matter. She said if there was a triggering mechanism for those nonsite-specific changes, then a property owner who did not want to take advantage of a new designation did not have to pay the recovery fee until the property was sold or the use was changed. She said deleting citizen-initiated eliminated confusion about the all-inclusive nature of the option. Mr. Kelly asked how site-specific was interpreted and whether it applied to particular parcels of land. Mr. Klein said he understood Ms. Bettman’s intent was for the option to cover not only quasi-judicial actions but also certain legislative actions and where those legislative actions, which could affect a number of parcels, were not requested by the property owner the tax would only be triggered when the owner took advantage of the change or the property was sold. Mr. Kelly indicated he would support the amendment. Mr. Pryor stated that the deletion of words proposed by Ms. Bettman transformed the option into double dip taxation and he could not support it. The vote on the motion to amend Option 1 was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Ortiz voting in support, and Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the main motion as amended was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Ortiz voting in support, and Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. D. CONSENT CALENDAR 2D. Adoption of Resolution 4868 Calling a City Election on November 7, 2006, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Authoriz- ing a Four-Year Local Option Levy for the Funding of Library Operations Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4868 calling a City Elec- tion on November 7, 2006, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure authorizing a four-year local option levy for the funding of library opera- tions. Mr. Papé said he requested during Budget Committee deliberations that staff develop a plan for integrating library operations into the FY08 budget in the event the measure did not pass and, if it did pass, a plan for eliminating dependence on revenue from the levy within four years. He did not see that plan in the AIS. City Manager Taylor said that type of plan would take time to formulate and there was not sufficient time MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 6 Work Session between the request and timing of the council’s decision to place a local option levy on the ballot to present such a plan. He said that based on the council’s direction during the past year, staff proceeded on the assumption that renewal of the levy would be recommended to the voters. Mr. Papé asked what the last possible date was for referring the levy to the voters. City Manager Taylor said it was the council’s last meeting before its break in early August. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to table the matter until the council’s last meeting in July 2006 in order to obtain more information on a plan to integrate library op- erations into the budget. Ms. Ortiz commented that action in July left little time to mount a campaign for a successful levy election. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Ortiz’s concern and said that the intended amendment by Ms. Bettman, which was distributed to the council, might address Mr. Papé’s concerns about a plan to transfer library services to the budget over the levy’s four-year period. Ms. Bettman also agreed with Ms. Ortiz regarding timing and said that her amendment would require transfer of library services to the City’s General Fund over a four-year period and embed that intent in the resolution and levy language. Mr. Papé did not feel that waiting until July to take action would jeopardize the success of the levy as it was no surprise to the voters that a third library local option levy was being put forward. The motion to table failed, 2:6; Mr. Papé and Ms. Solomon voting in favor. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved that recital C be amended and a new recital D be added to the resolution to read: C. On May 22, 2006, the City Council agreed that a four-year Local Option Levy of $2,687,500 per year should be placed on the November 7, 2006 ballot. The proposed levy would renew a part of the Library Local Option Levy currently on the tax bills of Eugene taxpayers in order to continue current library services. The median Eugene taxpayer will pay an average of $35 per year over the four year period of the levy. D. It is the intention of the City Council that library services will be transferred from the Library Local Option Levy to the General Fund over the four-year period of this Local Option Levy. By FY12, library operations will be entirely funded in the City’s General Fund. and that Section 1 be amended by deleting “$.041 per $1,000 of assessed value” and in- serting “$2,687,500 per year.” Speaking to the motion, Ms. Bettman said the library was an outstanding asset, the services it provided were excellent, and there was great community support for it. She believed that continuing to rely on levies to fund library ongoing services placed the library and those services at risk. She said the issues were thoroughly discussed during the budget process and a majority of Budget Committee members agreed with the City’s stated and adopted financial policy that ongoing services should not be funded through a levy, but MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 7 Work Session were concerned with a precipitous change in FY08 from full levy funding to full General Fund funding. She said her motion represented a compromise that addressed the concerns of the broadest range of committee members and councilors and if it passed she intended to support both the levy and the budget. She said the City was experiencing a healthy budget cycle because of its conservative fiscal policies over the years and it was the City’s responsibility to transition library operations into the General Fund consistent with those policies. In response to a request from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor said that Ms. Bettman’s amendment would put the City on a path to transition the library entirely into the General Fund over the period of the levy, but also place an increasingly difficult operating expense on the budget and a reduction in the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge distributed charts that illustrated the impact of adopting the levy as proposed and as amended by Ms. Bettman. She explained the impacts on the annual surplus/deficit and Reserve for Revenue Shortfall of the levy as recommended by the Budget Committee and as proposed by Ms. Bettman. Mr. Papé asked if the levy amount could be reduced each year. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that State law prohibited levying a different amount each year; the same amount had to be levied each year but the full amount did not have to be spent. City Manager Taylor added that the council had the option of levying at a certain level and if the goal to transition was reached faster than anticipated, the annual adoption of the budget could under-levy what the voters approved. Mr. Kelly commented that while State law did not allow the levy approach Ms. Bettman intended, it could still be accomplished from an accounting standpoint by spreading the funds over the four-year period. Mr. Pryor remarked that the discussion was about two ways to reach the same goal as there was agreement that this would be the last levy and library operations would be placed in the General Fund at the end of four years. He said the question was how that would occur and the impact on other aspects of the budget. He felt that the amendment to recital C reflected the council’s intent but created an unnecessary constraint. He preferred the version in the resolution as recommended by the Budget Committee and supported by staff because it would still allow the council to reach its goal of funding library operations while providing flexibility. He supported the addition of recital D and would propose it if Ms. Bettman’s amendment failed so that the public would be well aware of the council’s intent to move library operations into the General Fund. He would not support the amendment to recital C. Ms. Taylor said she would support the amendment and hoped the council would be stimulated to find new sources of revenue as levies were not the right way to support the library. Ms. Ortiz said it was difficult for her to abandon the idea of levies because she viewed the City as a whole and there were services that some people would have more access to than others, such as branch libraries. She was concerned that if library operations were entirely transitioned into the budget those services could be reduced or eliminated and outlying communities would have much less access. She would prefer to have a conversation about how the library could be made more accessible to the entire community instead of trying to decide how to put it in the budget. She feared that if the library was in the budget it would be competing against services such as police, fire, and social services. She thought it was easier to ask the community to support the main library and branch libraries in neighborhoods than to ask for money for the Police Department. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman said the decision to cut services if the levy failed was one the council would make and she noted that the City Manager’s proposed budget included $5 million in additions and the Budget Committee had recommended another $2.7 million in one-time or ongoing funding. She asked how the voters would react to a request for $4.3 million per year for the next four years to fund the library, which was an ongoing General Fund service, when the budget was used for all the other things that were added or increased. She thought the voters would say no. She thought it was disingenuous to suggest this was the last levy, noting that if the library could not be incorporated during a healthy budget cycle there was little chance it ever could it be. Mr. Papé agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s concerns and he felt that branch libraries were sacred. He agreed it was necessary to move library services into the budget but did not think there was the discipline to do that if the levy remained at the same level each year. City Manager Taylor said he had taken to heart comments from both the Budget Committee and the council, but the bottom line was the need to address issues such as police staffing shortages and other recommenda- tions in the Police Strategic Plan adopted by the council, the council priorities for homelessness, neighbor- hoods and cultural services policy review, and the potential impact of a decision not to pursue a school levy, all of which could require decisions about reducing the level and mix of services across the entire General Fund or pursuing other sources of revenue. He preferred to face those tasks without the constraints imposed by recommending to the voters a levy lower than the current level for the library. Mr. Kelly objected to Mayor Piercy calling on staff ahead of councilors and allowing them to express an opinion or “lobby” the council. He asked why staff had not presented an alternative to Ms. Bettman’s motion to accomplish the same goal. City Manager Taylor said the level of cuts required to implement Ms. Bettman’s motion could not be accomplished in the two-week period since the suggestion was made at a Budget Committee meeting. He said it would take some time and effort to develop the type of plan he knew the council would want to consider and implement over the next several years. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papé’s comments, particularly regarding branch libraries, and felt that library operations could be brought into the General Fund with a combination of Budget Committee, staff, and council creativity and the potential of exploring a revamped revenue structure. He would support the amendment. Responding to Mr. Kelly’s comment, Mayor Piercy said she wanted to hear the City’s Manager’s best judgment in response to any of the actions the council was considering, as that was an important part of the discussion as far as she was concerned. Mr. Papé asked if the City could bond for an endowment fund for the library. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the City could not borrow money to put it in the bank and earn interest to use for operations. Ms. Bettman commented that if anything was cut from the budget it should be the additions and enhance- ments instead of ongoing services. She said any cuts would come before the council and she was not interested in cutting any library services. She noted that there were several other reserve accounts in addition to the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall that could help transition the library into the General Fund. She said her amendment proposed a 25 percent reduction per year over the four years of the levy. The motion to amend the resolution passed, 6:2; Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon voting in op- position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 9 Work Session The motion to adopt Resolution 4868 as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. 2E. Adoption of Resolution 4869 Calling a City Election on November 7, 2006, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Authoriz- ing the Issuance of a Maximum of $25,490,000 of General Obligation Bonds for Parks, Recreation and Open Space Projects Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4869 calling a City Elec- tion on November 7, 2006, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure authorizing the issuance of a maximum of $25,490,000 of General Obli- gation Bonds for parks, recreation and open space projects. Ms. Solomon indicated her intent to propose an amendment to include incorporate decisions by the Budget Committee about Golden Gardens Park. Mr. Kelly noted that the Trust for Public Land (TPL) would provide free assistance to jurisdictions regarding ballot titles and other issue. He asked if there was time to use that assistance. Mr. Klein said that within five business days of the council’s adoption of the resolution, a ballot title would be certified to the City Recorder’s Office and then the public would have five business days in which to file an appeal of the ballot title; that appeal would come before the council. He said that he had exchanged information with TPL regarding drafting ballot titles. Mr. Kelly asked if Ms. Solomon’s proposed amendment to increase the bond measure by $2 million included $50,000 for a feasibility study and $600,000 for related safety improvements at Golden Gardens Park that were recommended by the Budget Committee. Mr. Klein said the amendment would add $2 million for Golden Gardens Park that could be used for purchase of land and construction of improvements and would include $35,000 of bond issuance costs. He understood that the $600,000 would be covered by the phrase “purchase of land or construction of improvements.” Mr. Kelly said he would support the amendment but it was important to reflect the intent of the council that the $600,000 would come from the bond measure if it passed. Mr. Klein said that was typically not the level of detail included in resolutions referring a measure to the voters, but that language could be added. Ms. Taylor said she was willing to support a larger bond measure but the council should take more time to consider all of the other requests, such as for another swimming pool. She was opposed to adding something to the bond measure just because a certain group of people decided they wanted it as there were many other groups who would have proposed other additions. Ms. Bettman said she would support Ms. Solomon’s amendment. She asked for clarification of language in Section D of the resolution relating to joint development of synthetic surface ball fields on school district property or City park property immediate adjacent, since it was explicit when the language was added that it would be school district property. Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin replied that the language would allow, based on discussions with the Bethel School District, one of the sites on the south side of Meadow View School to obtain enough land for a ball field close to existing parking and restroom facilities. He said the ball field would span the property line and be partially on the district’s property and partially on the park property. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she could support that intent with the addition of explicit language to amend the resolution by citing that one instance where City park property would be involved. Mr. Pryor commented that it was always difficult to add items to a measure but addressing the safety issues at Golden Gardens Park was supportable and could make the bond more responsive to the community. He said he would support Ms. Solomon’s amendment and any amendment that would address the Meadow View School ball field situation. Mr. Papé indicated he would support the motion and Ms. Solomon’s amendment with the intent that the City budget would be reimbursed for the $600,000. He asked if those funds had to be used to purchase land. Mr. Klein replied that the language allowed the funds to be used either for acquisition or development or both. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Medlin said that $1.75 million was for the West Eugene Wetlands Education Center and $5 million for ball fields. City Manager Taylor added that the number of ball fields was not specified as it was council’s intent to maximize use of the funds and leverage repair of existing synthetic turf. He felt that the council’s goals of adding at least five new assets and maintaining the four existing fields would be achieved. Mr. Papé asked if those arrangements would be formalized before the bond measure went to the voters. Mr. Medlin said the existing agreement with 4J School District would be expanded and a new agreement reached with Bethel School District. He said the intent was to establish and maintain equal partnerships on capital investments over the participating entities budget cycles. Mr. Papé emphasized the importance of informing the citizens of Eugene about exactly what they would be paying for and hoped that those partnerships would be better defined. He did not think a ball field should be owned by both the City and a school district. Mr. Poling asked if there were any other locations in the City where school district property and City park property were immediately adjacent, other than Meadow View School. Mr. Medlin replied that there were many other locations. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend Section D of Resolution 4869 to read: Joint development of synthetic surface ball fields on school district property and the City park parcel property located immediately adjacent to Meadow View School on Bethel School District school district property presents another opportunity to partner with other public entities. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor asked if another public hearing was required if the amount and purpose of the bond measure were changed. Mr. Klein replied that the change was to a resolution and a public hearing was not required. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend Resolution 4869 as follows: Delete the figure $25,490,000 set forth in the caption and Section 1 of the Resolution and insert the figure $27,490,000; Amend the fourth sentence of Finding B to read as follows: In addition, land should be acquired to crease a community park in Santa Clara, expand Amazon Park and park MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 11 Work Session land in front of the Shelton-McMurphey-Johnson House, and expand and begin con- struction at Golden Gardens Park. Amend the last sentence of Finding B by deleting the figure $18,250,000 and inserting the figure $20,250,000. Amend sections 1 and 4 by inserting the following after the words “preservation of open space”: “purchase of land and construction of improvements at Golden Gardens Park.” Amend Finding B by inserting before the sentence beginning “Land also needs…” the following sentence: “It is the council’s intent that up to $600,000 of General Fund con- tribution to the Golden Gardens Park project be reimbursed with bond proceeds if this measure passes.” Amend Finding B by replacing the phrase “to acquire new park land” at the end of the last sentence with the phrase “for these purposes.” The motion to amend the resolution passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 12 Work Session