Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/22/06 Meeting 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. Councilor Bettman indicated her willingness to serve on the committee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting 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. 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 only $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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting 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. 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting 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 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak to the item, she closed the public hearing. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting 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. 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting 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. 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, MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 13 Regular Meeting Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 14 Regular Meeting