Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: August 14, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 2A 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 June 19, 2006, Executive Session, June 21, 2006, Work Session, June 26, 2006, City Council Meeting, July 12, 2006, Work Session, July 19, 2006, Work Session, July 24, 2006, Executive Session, and July 25, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. June 19, 2006, Executive Session B. June 21, 2006, Work Session C. June 26, 2006, City Council Meeting D. July 12, 2006, Work Session E. July 19, 2006, Work Session F. July 24, 2006, Executive Session G. July 25, 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\M060814\S0608142A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2006–Executive Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060725m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/3 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 8/4 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/4 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 19, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the Eugene City Council to order and convened an executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(a). The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 19, 2006 Page 1 Executive Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: June 21, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060621m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/20/06rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 8/2 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/2 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 21, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Bettman participated by telephone. A. ACTION: City Manager Compensation Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adjust the City Manager’s compensation as described in Council Option D, which adjusts the City Manager’s compensation by a com- bination of Options A, B, and C. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion so that Option B would be considered first and Options A and C would be considered together. Mr. Kelly explained that he sought to consider the options separately because options A and C had to do with merit and Option B had to do with a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). Ms. Bettman noted that the cost–of-living adjustment for non-represented employees was 3.2 percent and asked what the increase was for represented employees. Lauren Chouinard, executive director of Human Resource and Risk Services, replied that employees represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) negotiated a 2.4 percent increase for the present year. City Manager Taylor added that the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) negotiated a 3.5 percent increase and the International Alliance of Fire Fighters (IAFF) negotiated a staggered increase that totaled 4 percent at the end of the year. Ms. Bettman did not understand why the contracts had different percentages of increase given that all employees faced the same inflation factors. Mr. Chouinard responded that the contracts were negotiated separately and they were negotiated two and three years out. He said negotiators had the option of setting COLAs using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) factor or requesting a specific amount in the out years. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that he would characterize Mr. Kelly’s motion as not debatable given that it was a motion to divide the question. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to make the COLA 2.4 percent. Ms. Solomon indicated she would not accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion so that the COLA would be set at 2.4 percent. Ms. Bettman opined that the City Manager’s COLA should be set at the level that the “least compensated among the City staff received.” Mr. Papé wondered what the Portland CPI was. He thought Portland was the closest gauge for Eugene. He favored setting the increase to that rate. Mr. Chouinard responded that he would be amazed if it was very far from the 3.2 percent increase that was being suggested. Mr. Papé thought it had been 2.5 percent. Ms. Bettman said she would be willing to take a friendly amendment changing the COLA to 2.5 percent. Mr. Papé replied that his information was not current. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to table the amendment until current information was brought forth. City Manager Taylor indicated that the item could be tabled until later in the meeting in order to allow staff to find the Portland CPI information. The vote to table the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Papé, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor, and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Kelly indicated his support for the motion. He thought it only fair that all non-represented employees receive the same COLA. The main motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mr. Papé ascertained from staff that the City Manager was currently at Step 5 of his salary scale. He did not favor giving the City Manager a whole step increase to Step 6. Ms. Bettman observed that the motion as it stood would give the City Manager a step increase to $140,192 in Option A and a 3.2 percent COLA with Option B and then an open-ended percent increase through Option C. She asked whether the low end of market as defined by City Council policy was the target number. Mr. Chouinard replied that the salary was 15.27 percent from the average salary for comparable positions and if the City Manager received a 7.7 percent increase, it would still be down by 3.6 percent. He estimated that it would bring the total compensation level to approximately $162,000. Ms. Bettman indicated her opposition to the motion. Ms. Solomon clarified that the motion for Option C would adjust the City Manager’s pay range by 3.6 percent. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly ascertained from Mr. Chouinard that what this combined motion accomplished was that in addition to the COLA, it would raise the City Manager’s pay by an additional 8.1 percent which amounted to approximately a $12,000 increase above the COLA. He thought the salary increase should be reflective of the reviews given the City Manager’s performance. He said since City Manager Taylor’s average review was a three on a scale of five, this struck him as “way out of line.” He was also puzzled as to why the City of Eugene was trying to close the gap with the entire western United States average including California and Colorado. To him it seemed unreasonable. He felt City Manager Taylor did a lot of very good work, but there were also very significant problems that had come up in the evaluation. Mr. Papé concurred with much of what Mr. Kelly had said. He felt there was a need for improvement particularly with regard to how things were communicated to the council and to the community. He thought a move to Step 6 was excessive. He did not know why the City of Eugene would want to close the gap with the entire western part of the country. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to delete Option C and to amend Option A to read “adjust the City Manager’s compensation to $138,000 annually.” Mr. Papé affirmed, in response to a question from Ms. Solomon that the increase would include the half step and the COLA. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposi- tion. Ms. Ortiz commented that she could not support giving the City Manager less than what he was due. She said he worked very hard. She expressed dismay that the council would not choose to compensate him in a manner that better reflected this. She did not have a problem giving him the salary increase delineated in the original motion and wished to clarify that the only reason she was supporting the current motion was that she wanted the City Manager to get a raise. Mr. Papé agreed that City Manager Taylor worked hard, but he was more interested in results. He said while the council was getting some “pretty good results,” he wished to see more results and some faster results in certain areas. He suggested that a subcommittee of the council be formed for the next City Manager review. Ms. Taylor preferred to implement a COLA that was comparable to the lowest-paid employees. She agreed that the City Manager worked very hard. She did not like comparisons to other cities and wished to underscore her belief that people come here because they like it, knowing that the average salary was low. She opined that Eugene did not need to try to keep up with other places. Mayor Piercy said she was sorry that the salary increase would not be a whole step. She agreed that the council could have spent more time looking at Option C. She averred that the City was in a healthy condition due to the good work of the City Manager and staff. She declared that he had earned the compensation reflected in both Options A and B and she was sorry the council was not delivering that to him at this time. The amended motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project – Final Report Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson welcomed David Reed of David Reed and Associates, Rob Handy, chair of the River Road Community Organization (RRCO), and Jerry Finigan, chair of the Santa Clara Community Organization (RRCO). He said Mr. Reed would present the final report and noted that it purposely did not address annexation. Mayor Piercy welcomed the guests and thanked them for their hard work. Mr. Reed highlighted the report for the record. He underscored that the Transition Plan was not code for annexation. He pointed out that annexation was not the number one issue that people raised. He said the chief concerns of area residents were infill, density, and development that retained the character of a neighborhood. He reported that River Road/Santa Clara residents placed the highest priority on safe, healthy, child- and family-friendly neighborhoods. He thought that alone presented the opportunity for a continued dialogue between the City and River Road/Santa Clara residents. Mr. Reed related that the framework of the report included a vision statement for River Road/Santa Clara that reflected core values and beliefs held by residents, 10 goal statements recommended to implement the vision, and 11 strategies and 38 actions that provided specific direction for implementing the framework. He stressed that these elements were vetted at length by the task force. He noted that the City of Eugene responded to initial drafts of the framework with a 20-page report and had only rejected two strategies. He felt this had given early traction to the framework development process and represented a good faith commitment on the part of the City staff. Mr. Reed stated that he had a copy of the 1986 Urban Facilities Plan for the River Road/Santa Clara area, the first chapter of which addressed the sanitary sewer element. He called the plan “woefully outdated” as a policy document. He felt elements of the transition and heritage framework, the vision statement, the goals, and the strategies would provide an opportunity to amend the plan and establish new policy directions for guiding the direction of the future of River Road/Santa Clara. Mr. Reed conveyed his deep appreciation for the members of the transition team and the task force and all the citizens who had participated in the process. He also thanked staff from the River Road Park District, the Santa Clara Fire Protection District, the Lane Rural Fire and Rescue Department, and the City of Eugene. He extended a special thanks to councilors Papé and Ortiz for their help and the Mayor for her “kind words of encouragement.” Mr. Finigan related that he had helped to frame the 1986 plan and would not object to altering it. He called the Transition Project a “milestone” in the relationship between the former independent communities of River Road and Santa Clara and the City of Eugene. He said in the report one could see that the two communities joined other neighborhoods in their concern about how the City was attempting to increase density by infilling properties. He felt this was particularly true in Santa Clara where most growth was occurring. He averred that current policy exacerbated the problems Santa Clara had been experiencing for the last four decades, including stormwater issues and increases in traffic. He reported that in the outreach sessions it had become clear that people chose to live in the area because they loved the rural feel and open spaces, while being close to the services that “make life convenient.” There was growing alarm at the rapid disappearance of open space. He suggested that the City could “go a long way” in establishing trust with the communities by partnering with them in finding better strategies for community development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Finigan noted that in the Looking Forward portion of the report, the committee recommended forming an annexation plan, to be created through a collaborative effort between the City and the residents of the area. He felt this would provide the transparency needed to dispel the mistrust of the residents and would engage the City Council not already participating in this process. He predicted that without this, the current problems and animosity would continue as the City staff attempted to meet the annexation goals of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan). Mr. Handy extended his thanks to the City for conducting this process. He felt the result, the Heritage Framework document, was a key to the next steps. He appreciated that the discussion had remained “annexation neutral.” He averred that the next steps in the Transition Plan would involve a work plan from the River Road Community Organization. He hoped that amendments to the refinement plan would arise from the work plan and that the amendments would lead to code changes that would make some of the “themes and ideas a reality” in the community. Mr. Handy encouraged the City to take time to vet the ideas in the Transition Plan with community organizations. He felt the City Council should work on a policy that would guide the River Road/Santa Clara area through its transition. He asserted that minus a policy, area residents were not able to relate to what the City was attempting to do and this fostered their mistrust. He asked that the council step back from the recommendation in the report that suggested the creation of an annexation plan. He believed this to be dangerously premature. He asserted that in order for residents to move forward and “heal and plan for the future” it would be very helpful to put this to a vote. Mr. Handy read the following from an essay written by Mr. Finigan: “Domination will never result in cooperation. Involve the citizens of Santa Clara and River Road in Eugene processes and they may one day feel a part of it.” Mr. Pryor thanked Mr. Reed, Mr. Finigan, and Mr. Handy for their “incredible work.” He extrapolated from the presentation that the community organizations had a desire for good faith efforts in terms of the annexation issue. He commented that ultimately it was not a matter of ‘if,’ it was a matter of ‘when.’ Mr. Finigan called annexation the “elephant in the room.” He said ignoring it would muddle all of the other elements of the plan. Mr. Kelly thanked the Transition Team. He said ultimately one of the places that the work would be reflected would be in revisions to the refinement plan. He averred that this was a key way to accomplish initiatives and it had worked in other areas of the City. He found the report to contain a lot of creative ideas and said they now needed to be sorted out in more detail, vetted out to the broader community and, at a later point, raised with the City Council. Mr. Kelly noted that the end of the report called for a statistically valid public opinion survey. He understood the hesitation about doing it too soon. He thought a neutral information piece should precede the survey. Mr. Kelly recalled that the council allocated $60,000 for neighborhood planning and implementation efforts. He thought it would be inappropriate to release those resources to the neighborhood associations until there was some council approval based traditionally on some sort of work plan. He asked Mr. Carlson if he foresaw an expeditious process that would pull something together that “council could say go forth and do good” about. Mr. Carlson responded that he, Mr. Handy, and Executive Director for the Planning and MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Development Department (PDD) Susan Muir had talked about the need for a process to figure out how this would work. He said there were no good precedents for how to enable a neighborhood organization to access these public funds. Mayor Piercy stated that the third item on the agenda, Sign Code Enforcement, could be rescheduled in order to fully discuss this item. There was general concurrence. Ms. Ortiz shared Mr. Kelly’s concerns regarding how the money would be distributed. She thanked everyone for their hard work and commended their dedication to keeping their community intact. Mr. Papé was appreciative of the process. He agreed that annexation should be placed on the back burner in order to focus people on the other issues. He asked the community organization leaders if they felt the council had listened to their concerns. Mr. Finigan felt the council had listened. He said the difference between this process and the one that had been conducted in the 1980s was that community leaders were coming to the council because that was where the solutions lay. Mr. Handy agreed with Mr. Finigan, but wished to “tease out some nuances.” He thought it was a little more complicated because the City had to listen to, discuss with, and respect the ideas of River Road/Santa Clara residents. He felt that how the City and the neighborhoods worked together would become the hallmark of how they had been listened to and how the next steps would be taken. Mr. Papé asked Mr. Finigan and Mr. Handy if they felt the relationship between the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods and the City of Eugene improved. Mr. Finigan replied that the people involved in the process seemed to understand that they had to work with the City on this. Mr. Handy responded that the effort of the City was improving. He averred that the determination of infill standards, street standards, and low-impact development standards would contribute to the improvement of the City’s relationship with residents, especially as citizens could actively recognize the role of the City in the creation of improved standards. Mr. Papé called out the work of Assistant City Manager Carlson and thanked him for it. Ms. Taylor thanked the Transition Team for their work. She asked Mr. Handy if he was requesting a no vote to the motion. Mr. Handy asked if there was a motion on the table. Ms. Taylor clarified that it was a suggested motion, but that it had not been made yet. She expressed skepticism about accepting a report. She asserted that a plan could later be used to implement policy she did not necessarily agree with. Mr. Handy stated that there was one aspect of the report that did not have traction in the community. He reiterated its hesitation to endorse the recommendation for the City to proceed with an annexation plan. Ms. Taylor averred that the council needed to discuss infill standards for the whole city. She alleged that all of the neighborhoods she knew about were “suffering from inappropriate infill.” Ms. Taylor was also skeptical about the statement that said 2/3 of the participants favor annexation. She thought the people who did not favor annexation would not have participated in this process. Mr. Reed clarified that 1/3 favored annexation and 1/3 were undecided. Ms. Taylor opined that the River Road/Santa Clara area should have been a separate community or there should have been a plan for annexation all at once. She felt the City was “stuck in a place” because of past mistakes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman echoed her colleagues’ thanks for the work that went into the plan. She supported the report but could not support moving forward to create an annexation plan. She asked how the council could accept the plan without reinforcing this idea. Mayor Piercy reiterated that the council was not approving any recommendations at this time, it was only voting to accept the report. Mr. Carlson said this was why staff had used the word ‘accept’ rather than ‘approve’ or ‘adopt,’ because the latter two were stronger terms. He assured the council that amending the Urban Facilities Plan or the enacting of new code amendments for infill development would be separate actions that would come back for approval. Ms. Bettman said as long as the legislative intent and the record supported Mr. Carlson’s assertion she was prepared to support acceptance of the plan. Mayor Piercy was struck by how much citizens had in common. She said the intensity and the amount of conversation and investment area residents had in this plan were something the elected officials witnessed throughout the community on a regular basis. She felt it was an important attribute of the community’s processes and life. She had been heartened to listen to this conversation. She observed that no matter where one lived in the community, infill was a difficult concept to deal with. She said the City has one policy which dictates that residents should live more densely so that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) would not have to be expanded, yet there was a strong feeling throughout the community that residents did not want their neighborhoods to change in nature. She commented that it was difficult to meet both goals at the same time, adding that we are only at the beginning of that struggle. Mr. Kelly agreed that it was not the ‘if’ or the ‘when,’ but the ‘how’ in this challenge. Regarding infill, he quoted former PDD director, Paul Farmer, who said “change is inevitable but decline is not.” He said Santa Clara and River Road did not look the same as they had 20 years ago and they were guaranteed not to look the same in 20 years. He believed that the City and its residents could collectively devise a way that the neighborhoods could look and feel “good and better” than they did now. Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Handy how he would envision the policy he suggested. Mr. Handy replied that it would be broad enough to give citizens something to “interface with” so that they understand where the City was coming from. He cited as an example that the case had not been effectively made for street annexations and community residents were not persuaded that they were necessary. He wanted, on some level, the City to communicate to its citizens about what it wanted to do and how it intended to do it so that citizens had a better understanding of what the City was doing. Mr. Carlson noted that there had been a lot of focus on the Urban Facilities Plan, but there was also a major section of the Metro Plan that dealt with the provision of services to River Road/Santa Clara. He said this was actually where the City’s policies related to annexation and the future of the area were located. He stated that this was developed in the years from 1979 to 1982 and it focused on the provision of sanitary sewers in the area. He thought it would be of use to take a comprehensive review of the plan. He noted that the County also shared some of the issues regarding urban transition. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that County Commissioner Bill Dwyer, Springfield, was in attendance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Handy said there were other elements of the Metro Plan that spoke to the uniqueness of the situation in River Road and Santa Clara. He understood that at times it was felt that the area should not be treated in a special way, yet the Metro Plan said the area presented a unique situation. He urged everyone to consider “the rising tide of equity” and whether this tide lifted all of the neighborhoods or a way to lower the livability of all of neighborhoods. He wished to see all of the things that the neighborhood organizations were striving for enacted citywide, as he thought they would be applicable to the entire city. But if the City could not do this, then he felt it should treat the River Road/Santa Clara as per its description as a unique situation in the Metro Plan. Ms. Taylor noted that the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) model sought to protect the Chambers Area neighborhood. She thought it was a good model for the whole City. She felt the City had made past mistakes and recalled the parking garage project adjacent to the proposed Whole Foods Grocery project in which she alleged not enough time had been given for public input. She underscored the importance of not taking actions that destroy trust. She reiterated her skepticism regarding the word ‘accept.’ She wished to add language that indicated that the council accepted the report but this did not mean ‘totally approve.’ Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to accept the River Road and Santa Clara Transition Project Final Report. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Sign Code Enforcement Due to a lack of time, this item was postponed. The meeting adjourned at 1:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: June 26, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060626m2.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/17/06rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 8/3 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/3 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Returned to Staff ____ __ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall June 26, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - Afro-Academic Cultural, Technological, and Scientific Olympics (ACT-SO) The winners of the Afro-Academic Cultural, Technological and Scientific Olympics (ACT-SO) presented their winning submissions. Yasha Stubbs presented her vocal piece and Jarret Anderson performed his winning oratorial. Mayor Piercy read a proclamation honoring Ms. Stubbs and Mr. Anderson for their work. The proclama- tion underscored that the community winners would move on to compete on a national level in Washington, DC. She presented copies of the proclamation to the two honorees. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, said he had been looking closely at the new courthouse building and observed that there were trailers parked behind that property. He alleged that the trailer residents had worked for the former cannery that occupied the property and that many former employees of the cannery were now homeless. He commented that he would like to see a world where curious journalists photo- graphed sites such as the one with trailers on it. He wanted people to think about how architecture, tax breaks, and urban renewal could devour a community or enhance it. He opined that the federal courthouse was devouring the area around it “through secrecy and through wonkish details.” Allan Erickson , 29559 Clear Lake Road, Eugene, stated that the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Medical Marijuana Amendment was going before the United States Congress in the last week of June. He explained that the amendment was an adjunct to the Department of Justice funding bill that would deprive the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Department of Justice from using funds to go after medical marijuana MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting patients in any of the states that had such legislation. He underscored that the amendment would not affect states without such legislation. He asked the councilors to ask Congressman Peter DeFazio and other Oregon representatives to back Mr. Hinchey on the amendment. He noted that the amendment gained momentum every year and most recently four of the Oregon representatives supported it and only one opposed it. He hoped that no one doubted the legitimacy of medical cannabis. He acknowledged that for years it had been touted as a cancer-causing agent and countered that recent studies suggested this was not so. He cited a study that indicated that cannabis actually helped to fight cancer in some situations. He had letters prepared for the councilors to sign. James A. Greig , 145 Ruby Street, spoke on behalf of Americans for Safe Access, stressed that he was advocating strictly for medical use of cannabis. He said he had been in Washington, DC, lobbying for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. He met with 21 members of Congress and both Oregon State Senators and most of his meetings had gone well. He stated that the Death with Dignity Law did not allow patients in their final stages of life to get “their medicine” through a pharmacy. He noted that California adopted a dispensary system. He said until regulations were passed by the State or Federal government that would classify cannabis as a Schedule 3 medicine, obtaining the medicine was a dilemma faced by medical marijuana users. He added that people also faced employment loss and the loss of custody of children. He supplied information on the addictive properties of a number of drugs including nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol, and also on the “gateway theory,” which showed that tobacco was proved to be more of a gateway drug than marijuana. He stated that federal forfeiture laws could be brought into play and a person growing medical marijuana for personal use could lose his or her home. He encouraged the council to agree with Congressman DeFazio and other supporters of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment. He added that he was a medical marijuana user because of chronic pain due to arthritis and related muscle spasms and problems associated with glaucoma. He had been able to reduce his dependency on pain pills through use of medical marijuana. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Kelly thanked the speakers in the Public Forum. He encouraged Mr. Greig and Mr. Erickson to obtain signatures to the letters during the council break. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - May 10, 2006, Workshop - May 22, 2006, City Council Meeting - May 24, 2006, Work Session - May 31, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adop- tion of Resolution 4882 Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Constructing Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Street Lights, Water Quality Bioswales, and Stormwater Drainage on River Avenue from 200 feet East of River Road to 100 feet West of Beltline Highway (Job #3693) D. Transfer of Water Pollution Control Facility Property from the City of Eugene to the Metro- politan Wastewater Management Commission Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar including the minutes, as amended, from the May 17, 2006, Work Session. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Papé pulled Item D. Councilor Kelly said he had previously submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy noted the corrections and deemed them, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman indicated she also submitted corrections to the minutes. 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 D, passed unanimously, 7:0. Regarding Item D, Councilor Papé assumed that it was part of the intention of the agreement finalized one year earlier to finalize the conveyance of ownership of the property to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). He wondered why the property was under the ownership of the City of Eugene in the first place, whether Eugene had paid for the property and, if it had, whether Eugene was being compensated adequately for it. City Manager Dennis Taylor asked Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffier to respond to the questions. Mr. Ruffier stated that the proposal before the council sought to transfer 95-plus acres to the MWMC to complete the definitions and the ownership of the regional wastewater treatment plant. He said the original boundary covered approximately 62 acres. Councilor Papé asked why, if the City of Eugene owned it and had acquired approximately 30 more acres, had there not been some compensation paid. Mr. Ruffier replied that there had never been any compensa- tion paid for the original Eugene Wastewater Treatment Plant, nor had there been any compensation paid to Springfield for the original Springfield treatment plant, both of which were envisioned to be transferred to the MWMC in the original 1977 agreement that formed the commission. City Attorney Glenn Klein understood Councilor Papé’s question somewhat differently. He explained that the additional acres had been purchased by the City of Eugene and, at that time, MWMC had either reimbursed the City or fronted the money for it. He clarified that the transfer had been conducted in this manner for legal reasons. He underscored that the City of Eugene had not paid for this property from its funds. Councilor Papé asked if this was the case for the original acreage. Mr. Ruffier replied that the original acreage had never been compensated for by a transfer of funds. Councilor Papé ascertained from Mr. Ruffier that the City of Eugene paid for the original 62 acres and asked why no compensation was being offered for it. Mr. Ruffier stated that the original agreement envisioned a transfer of funds, but over the years, staff wrestled with the issue of who owed what and for what. He asked the council to keep in mind that the regional wastewater system served both Eugene and Springfield and roughly two-thirds of the ratepayers were in the City of Eugene and one-third in Springfield. He clarified that the ratepayers would pay for the facility in that proportion. He reiterated that Springfield abandoned its wastewater facility and had not been compensated, just as Eugene had not been compensated. Councilor Papé asked if the Springfield wastewater treatment facility could be cleaned up and sold to someone else for development. Mr. Ruffier responded that under the IGA, when the County Service District (CSD) was formed in 1978 to raise funds for the regional facilities, the CSD had to be owners in order to issue the bonds. He said the agreements indicated that the CSD was the owner and, in return, the CSD leased the property to the MWMC with an option to purchase for $100 and this option was exercised. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting He stated that all of the documents indicate that the MWMC was the owner in equity, though the titles had never been transferred over. Councilor Papé asked if the MWMC paid rent for the property. Mr. Ruffier replied that it had not. Councilor Papé surmised that Eugene was, in essence, donating its facility. Mr. Ruffier affirmed this, adding that Springfield had also donated its facility. Councilor Papé pointed out that Springfield’s facility was no longer needed. Mr. Ruffier explained that it had been abandoned in the original agreement and Springfield had given up value in its original facility when it joined the regional facility. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Ruffier stated that Springfield still held the title for its facility but intended to transfer the title to the MWMC. Councilor Papé asked legal counsel if the City of Eugene was obligated to conduct the transfer. Mr. Klein said he could not answer this question. He suggested there be a postponement. Councilor Papé observed that the property went all the way to the river and wondered why the City of Eugene was transferring the property to that point. Mr. Ruffier replied that it was part of the original Eugene Wastewater Treatment site and all of it was being transferred to make it a clean transaction. He added that there really was no expansion beyond the existing boundaries of the original facility. In response to concern expressed by Councilor Papé regarding the City’s desire to continue expanding the parks areas along the river, Mr. Ruffier assured him that the City would reserve easements for the bicycle path and other recreational amenities in the Greenway. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to table Item D, transfer of Water Pollution Control Facility property from the City of Eugene to the Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:2; councilors Poling and Kelly voting in opposition. Councilor Papé expressed concern that the timing of this item might harm the City’s ability to be compensated by the MWMC in the Local Improvement District (LID) for River Avenue. Mr. Klein said he would review this and return with the answer at the next meeting and a motion could be made, if necessary, to reconsider Item C, the adoption of Resolution 4882 forming the aforementioned LID. City Manager Taylor felt that staff could determine whether tabling the transfer would affect who participated in the LID before the end of the meeting. Councilor Bettman asked if it would be possible to “reserve some of [the property] back” since the MWMC might not need the whole property. Mayor Piercy suggested that since the item had been tabled, Councilor Bettman reserve her questions for Mr. Ruffier and the City Attorney until after the meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Condominiums and Manufactured Dwelling Parks; Amending Sections 2.1060, 2.1064, 2.1070, and 2.1074 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effec- tive Date City Manager Taylor asked Grants Manager for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), Linda Dawson, to address this issue. Ms. Dawson explained that the public hearing sought testimony on proposed code revisions governing condominium conversions. She noted that the City regulated such conversions since 1981. She listed three basic provisions to tenants in existing units and to potential purchasers that were listed in the code: 1. The developer is required to hire a housing counselor to assist the tenant in finding a comparable unit; 2. Monetary benefits for moving costs are provided to special category tenants, i.e. people with low incomes, elderly people, and persons with disabilities; 3. Purchasers are made aware of the building conditions. Ms. Dawson stated that this issue had arisen from recent interest in condominium conversions. She said four changes were being proposed and those changes had been reviewed by the Housing Policy Board (HPB). The HPB forwarded a recommendation to adopt the ordinance. She listed the changes, as follows: 1. The requirement for a certified engineer report was changed to a requirement for a more commonly available report from a reserve specialist; 2. The moving costs would be tied to the Federal Uniform Relocation Act, to ensure that costs were kept current in the market; 3. The requirement for the city building inspection was being eliminated; 4. The tenant’s right to stay was being clarified so that it was understood the tenant had 120 days from the time the application for the permit was received. Ms. Dawson noted that action on this item was scheduled for July 10. Councilor Bettman asked if Springfield had the same language in an ordinance. Ms. Dawson replied that she was not aware that the City of Springfield had such an ordinance. Councilor Bettman observed that the moving expenses were only reimbursable if the displaced tenant moved within the City limits of Eugene. She felt that under this provision a tenant would be “almost penalized” if he or she moved to Springfield. Councilor Bettman asked if any testimony had been received by the HPB regarding the reduction of time the tenant had a right to remain in an apartment. Ms. Dawson responded that there had been some concern, though no testimony, on this but she felt it was good to distinctly delineate the time period. She said it was approximately the same amount of time, ultimately, but now it was clearly tied to the issuance of the permit. Councilor Bettman asked Ms. Dawson to characterize the testimony on that issue given before the HPB. Ms. Dawson replied that there had been a brief discussion of the HPB. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, asked if this request for changes in the rules had come from developers Connor and Woolley. Staff responded that it had not. Mr. Vishanoff felt the Lincoln School Apartments were being “lost to condos.” He thought a way to mitigate that would be to take the old Condon School and convert it to apartments. He opined that there were “so many of these old schools that [one] could get the chance to live in.” He urged the City to conduct an audit of low-income housing. John VanLandingham , 335 North Grand Street, said he was an advocate for the ordinance passed in 1981. Additionally, he had helped to write the ordinance. He clarified that no one testified before the HPB about the decrease in time to 120 days, but the HPB discussed it extensively. He related that County Commissioner Bobby Green expressed concern with it. He said the majority of the members were comfortable with a 120-day limit as it was 120 days from the issuance of the permit and the process was significantly longer than that. He averred that if the council had an issue with this change, the HPB would be amenable to removing it. He underscored that the limited amount of moving expense money had been their biggest area of concern. In regard to Councilor Bettman’s question, Mr. VanLandingham said he could not recall why the moving expenses were limited to the city of Eugene. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly indicated his intention to introduce an amendment, included in council packets regarding payment of moving expenses; specifically tying the amount to the Fixed Residential Moving Cost Schedule set forth by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Councilor Kelly opined, regarding the ordinance, that though policy stipulated that there be a mix of housing types, there were not enough condominiums, particularly given the aging population. Councilor Bettman said she would introduce language to amend the ordinance to include a broader area in the parameters for the payment of moving expenses. Additionally, she wondered if the change in requirements from an engineering report to that of a reserve specialist would compromise standards. Ms. Dawson responded that such specialists were commonly used across the nation. She offered to get more information on this issue. Councilor Bettman wished to know where the liability would fall. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Dawson explained that the owner had to give notice to the tenant that the conversion was pending and, no sooner than 30 days and no later than 60 days from that point, the owner was required to apply for the permit. In response to a question from Councilor Taylor, Ms. Dawson said the original instigation for the ordinance was that it had become impossible to obtain the required certified architect’s report and one could not conduct a conversion without such a report under the current ordinance. Additionally, the moving costs had been set in 1986 and had not been updated. Councilor Taylor asked why a tenant would want a residence converted to a condominium. Ms. Dawson replied that she received a copy of the tenant surveys from the Lincoln School Apartments and there were different responses from everyone. Some were happy because they wanted to buy the apartments, some were sad because they would have to move, and others were neutral. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor asserted that the City was contributing to homelessness by facilitating the conversion. Ms. Dawson pointed out that the City’s downpayment assistance program, funded through the Community Development Division, helped people to purchase their own homes. Condominiums were an affordable option in many cases. Councilor Kelly noted that the rents were pretty high at the Lincoln School Apartments. He doubted if anyone renting there would become homeless as a result of the condominium conversion. Mayor Piercy added that the closure of manufactured home parks was a long-term issue that was coming before the council later in the year. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4883 Adopting an Inflationary Adjustment of Systems Development Charge Rates for Regional Wastewater System City Manager Taylor stated that Engineering Data Services Manager for the Public Works Department, Fred McVey, was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman noted that there had been some materials at the councilors’ places and asked if there were any changes from the material in the packet. Mr. McVey replied that the packet had been incomplete, but there were no changes to the materials. 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Held pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h) Mayor Piercy convened an Executive Session in the McNutt Room at 8:30 p.m. to consult with legal counsel regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. The regular meeting of the City Council reconvened at 9:16 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting 7. ACTION: Lane Plywood Measure 37 Claim for Compensation (M37 05-1) Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt Attachment B (Option 4). Councilor Poling said he would support the motion primarily based on the conversation the council had with legal counsel. He wanted to stress that each one of the Ballot Measure 37 claims would be decided based on individual factors and the council would not be “rubber-stamping” them. He commented that the ballot measure had a lot of problems associated with it. Councilor Bettman opined that the claim demonstrated that Ballot Measure 37 was nothing short of institutional anarchy. She said the implications of either decision were complicated. Councilor Kelly agreed with councilors Poling and Bettman. He thought all of the possibilities were “ugly.” He recalled that ads for the ballot measure suggested that people who wished to make homes for their adult children on their land would be unable to do so and that they would not be able to gain retirement income from long-time ownership of property. However, the cases that were being brought for judgment had nothing to do with this. He hoped the voters would see the “monster they have created.” Councilor Papé called it being between a “rock and a hard place.” He concurred with the councilors’ comments. He was unhappy with the State Legislature’s apathy with the issue as the Legislature had been warned in 2001 and had not taken that opportunity to address the issue. Councilor Solomon echoed her colleagues’ sentiments regarding the “utter predicament” the council faced with this claim. She was uncertain that the proponents of the ballot measure understood what they were writing into law. She did not believe that the staff recommendation was in the spirit of what the voters had approved and said she would oppose it. Councilor Taylor said she would reluctantly support the motion. She agreed with Councilor Kelly’s comments. Mayor Piercy commented that however the council voted on the item, it was apparent that she and the councilors felt a tremendous responsibility for the future of the community. She felt the council had faced a very difficult set of choices and she commended the legal expertise that the City Attorney brought to the table. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. 8. ACTION: Appointment of Presiding Municipal Judge Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to reappoint Judge Wayne Al- len to another four-year term as Presiding Judge of Municipal Court, and direct staff to re- new his contract. Mayor Piercy spoke glowingly of Judge Allen’s service. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting 9. ACTION: A Special Ordinance Granting an Exemption to the Application of Eugene Code, 1971, Section 6.200 (Ordinance to Renew Five-Year Exception to Application of Eugene Code 6.000 (Open Burning) for Prescribed Wetland Management Burning) Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4927, an ordinance concerning a five-year exception to the Eugene Code for prescribed wetland management burning. Councilor Bettman said it was disturbing to her that a concerned citizen had been unaware of the public hearing that had been held on this item. She expressed appreciation for the explanation that had been provided and for staff’s response to that citizen. She asked for an explanation of the noticing process. Natural Resources Manager for the Parks and Open Space Division, Sarah Medary, stated that the process had begun in early May. She related that staff had begun preparing materials at that time to meet the deadlines. She said notice of the hearing had been published in The Register-Guard on May 26 in the same manner as all public hearings. She added that it had also been listed in the public meetings calendar. Councilor Bettman ascertained from staff that the public hearing was publicized in the form of a legal notice. City Manager Taylor emphasized that the hearing was publicized in the way that all of these types of actions were publicized. He said since this action was a renewal of a previous action and was backed by scientific information provided by Parks and Open Space staff, it did not seem to require any extraordinary public involvement process. In response to a question from the City Manager, Ms. Medary acknowledged that no one spoke at the public hearing and the only communication received had been the email sent earlier in the day. Councilor Bettman commented that she really relied on the public to bring forward issues that would give her a more comprehensive look at the decisions before her. She wondered if it would be possible to publish City Council agendas and notices for public hearings on the Metro Television channel before or after the scheduled meetings so people could see what was coming up and be engaged in issues they were concerned about in a timely way. City Manager Taylor pointed out that this information was available on the City Web site. He thought staff could explore the possibility of including notice on Metro Television. Councilor Bettman opined that when no one testified at a public hearing on an important issue it repre- sented a failure on the part of the council. She felt it was the council and staff’s responsibility to make sure the public was informed. Councilor Taylor said she knew the two people who were concerned about this item. She asserted that they were active in their neighborhood association and seemed to be on top of the issues. She wondered if it would be possible to postpone action for further consideration. She asked staff if the planned burning was scheduled for the fall. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting Ms. Medary affirmed that the burning would not start until fall, but the permit process, putting the plans together, and gaining the necessary approvals to move forward happened much earlier. City Manager Taylor asked if the council intended to hold in abeyance action on the basis of testimony from one person out of all of the people in the community after the public hearing and on the day of action. He noted that most of the issues raised by the email had been resolved by staff response. He opined that if the council delayed action every time one person weighed in on a public hearing it would make the political process cumbersome and costly. Councilor Taylor stressed that it was two people and not one person that sent the email. Ms. Medary said she had received a second email from that concerned citizen that asked why staff had not included information published in a paper by the Oregon State University in the information provided to the council. She reported that she had looked into this and the specific research and paper had been cited in information given to the council that had been published by Ed Alverson, the ecologist working for the Nature Conservancy. Councilor Taylor alleged that the director of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) did not know about the issue until she had called it to his attention. Ms. Medary responded that this was the fourth five-year exception and the City had been working with LRAPA every year. Councilor Taylor countered that the director was new. In response to Councilor Taylor, Ms. Medary affirmed that prior to the burn, the Parks and Open Space Division had to obtain permits from the Fire Department, LRAPA, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Councilor Taylor reiterated her desire to wait two weeks before taking action. Councilor Taylor asked if there was no way to protect wildlife when conducting such a burn. Ms. Medary replied that most things did move out of the way. Councilor Kelly did not believe the council would learn anything substantive over the next two weeks. He reiterated that LRAPA had to issue the permit. He expressed appreciation for the response that Parks and Open Space Division staff provided, saying it had helped to “re-convince” him that if the goal was to promote wetland health, this was the best way to do so. He averred that burning was working at “the broad eco-system level.” He felt the larger issue that had been raised was how to increase public awareness of every item of concern that came before the City Council. He commented that he did not know what substantive step the council could take to increase public involvement. He noted that the new portal Web site the City had instituted was purported to allow people to sign up on interest lists so that they would receive an automatic email when a public hearing or action was coming up that might be of concern to them. He asked for an update on how this was progressing. He added that publishing full page ads in the Eugene Weekly and The Register-Guard would draw more interest in council actions but it would also cost a great deal of money. Councilor Bettman indicated her support for the motion. She felt the staff work on the item had been exhaustive. She did not think the Legal Notices section of the newspaper was often read by the public and wondered what other means could be used to increase public awareness. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy said she would venture to say that it did not matter how many ads were placed in the newspaper or how adequate the noticing was, there would always be people who would miss the fact that a public hearing was being held. City Manager Taylor pointed out that in the spirit of trying to gain more meaningful participation in the public process, the council had decided to try holding meetings that consisted of only public hearings. He noted that the first extra meeting for that purpose would be scheduled for September 18. Councilor Taylor suggested that notification sent to the neighborhood associations might increase public attendance at hearings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Klein reiterated that he would get more information regarding the tabled item so that the council could reconsider the Consent Calendar item regarding the LID on River Avenue if necessary. He asked that anyone with further questions submit them to staff. City Manager Taylor noted that this meeting was one of the first meetings available through “streaming video” on line. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 12, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060712m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/25/06 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 8/3 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/3 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Shop/Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 12, 2006 3 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. A. WORKSHOP: Facilitated Dialogue with Communities of Color The council was joined by representatives of the Communities of Color for a facilitated dialogue. B. WORK SESSION: Collaborative Process to Identify a Transportation Solution for West Eugene and the FY06-09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. She recognized Mr. Papé for a motion. Mr. Papé thanked the mayor and council for agreeing to schedule the session. He indicated his intent to offer the council a motion that would give the council’s representatives to the Metropolitan Policy Committee more flexibility with regard to the City’s position on the Metropolitan Transportation Improve- ment Program (MTIP). Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to (a) rescind the council’s May 24 approval of the motion giving direction to the council’s MPC representatives and (b) request the mayor and City Manager schedule a work session in the fall to discuss a process to design and build transportation projects in west Eugene. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to Mr. Papé for his interest in giving himself and the mayor more flexibility at the MPC meeting, but said his desire was the opposite: he wished to ensure that they went to the meeting with very clear direction from a council majority. He agreed with two points in the motion, but felt more was needed, particularly in light of the fact that County Commissioner Bobby Green intended to offer the MPC a motion to retain the West Eugene Parkway in the MTIP. He offered the following substitute motion: Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that, as a result of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s recent refusal to participate in the collaborative process as outlined in the City Council’s May 24, 2006, motion supporting a draft resolution for the MPC, that the City Council: MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 12, 2006 Page 1 Work Shop/Work Session 1. Rescinds its May 24, 2006, motion regarding the MPC resolution; 2. Continues to support a collaborative process that includes ODOT, if ODOT should change its position; 3. Does not support the West Eugene Parkway in its current alignment nor the recent Fed- eral Highways Administration proposed southern alignment. The southern alignment could only be considered along with a wide range of other projects in the collaborative process; 4. Supports the adoption of the fiscal year 2006-2009 MTIP, including all projects except the West Eugene Parkway; and 5. Directs staff to return with a proposed list of transportation priorities for north and west th Eugene, including projects on the Beltline corridor and West 11 Avenue, and calls for a work session this fall to consider how to advance these priorities. Speaking in support of the substitute motion, Mr. Kelly said he believed it important for the council to go on record that a majority of members continued to support the idea of the Mayor’s collaborative process. The motion made it clear to the MPC that the door was open to examining other possibilities, including the southern alignment. The motion also clarified what the council’s representatives to the MPC should do with regard to the MTIP, and established a work session related to transportation priorities in west Eugene. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to divide each component of the motion into separate motions. City Attorney Glenn Klein advised Mr. Papé against dividing the motion, suggesting that alternatively, he move to delete those components he wished to remove. Mr. Kelly declined to accept a friendly amendment from Mr. Papé to delete items 3 and 4. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to remove items 3 and 4 from the motion. Ms. Bettman indicated that, while it was not her optimum approach, she preferred Mr. Kelly’s motion as stated because it addressed all the interests involved. She supported items 3 and 4 in particular. Mr. Papé wanted the council’s representatives to the MPC to have sufficient flexibility to go to the MPC and find a solution. He pointed out that the solution would be approved by the council. He wanted the Mayor and Mr. Kelly to go to the MPC with open minds and hearts. Mr. Kelly suggested that if the council’s representatives went into the MPC meeting with the direction to be flexible, their actions would upset several councilors. He suggested that the time for flexibility was inside the collaborative process. He expressed disappointment with his meeting with ODOT Director Garrett, as he had hoped for flexibility in that quarter, but instead he and the Mayor were handed a letter stating the director’s position about the collaborative process. He hoped to “restore an atmosphere of flexibility” into the discussion. Mayor Piercy averred that Item 4 merely restated what the council majority in opposition to the parkway had stated all along—that they were willing to move the other MTIP projects forward. She further averred that she received an indication from ODOT that it would be willing to participate in a “new collaborative process.” Mr. Poling said that had he known on May 24 that ODOT was not willing to participate in a collaborative process, he would not have offered the council an amendment to the resolution related to the timing and cost of the process, and was unlikely to have supported the council’s resolution. He supported the amendment on MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 12, 2006 Page 2 Work Shop/Work Session the table because he believed that the spirit of the substitute motion and in particular items 3 and 4 were in direct opposition to the expressed will of the voters. The vote on the amendment to the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting yes; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the amended (substitute) motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the amended motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 12, 2006 Page 3 Work Shop/Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 19, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060719m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/19/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 8/3 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/3 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 19, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She encouraged the public to continue to provide input to the council on a City Hall complex throughout the process. A. WORK SESSION: City Hall Complex Priority Issue City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced consultants Jonah Cohen and Thomas Hacker of Thomas Hacker Architects to discuss the community forums and City Hall complex issue. Mr. Cohen reviewed the status of the project and the decisions the council was being asked to make. He said the project was in the development plan phase during the current calendar year, and that phase consisted of technical studies and obtaining public feedback to assist the council in making informed policy decisions, which would form the basis of the conceptual design of the project that would occur later in the year. He said the project architectural design would be developed during the implementation phase in 2007 and issues such as financing and phasing would be explored. Mr. Cohen said the development plan phase consisted of four decision-making cycles, each consisting of three steps: a council work shop, a public forum to educate the public and solicit specific feedback requested by the council and a follow-up council work session to reduce possible options for further consideration to give the design team clear direction for moving forward. He noted the current work session was the final step in the second cycle and would focus on whether a consolidated City Hall complex should involve renovation of the existing City Hall, all new construction or a combination of both. He emphasized that the council was not being asked to select a site; that process would begin with a review of the first draft of site selection criteria and site selection would be the subject of the next cycle of meetings. Mr. Cohen stated that the current cycle began with the development of six approaches—two each for renovation, hybrid and new—intended to explore how the project could be developed. He said a draft list of criteria for evaluating those decisions was revised into a final list of criteria based on the council’s input. He said construction cost models were developed for each option using multiple sources of information and expanded to include the costs of land, demolition and relocation as well as the cost of maintenance and utility costs for a period of 50 years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Cohen said public input was solicited through a community forum and many other venues identified in the agenda materials and feedback was recorded and included in writing as part of the reports to the council. He said the project website was continually updated with all information and reports as part of the ongoing communication process. He reminded the council that the options being considered were not architectural designs but rather mental models intended to convey the implications of some of the specific choices facing the council. Ms. Taylor said she attended both public meetings and her impression was that the process had not been as broad or as deep as she anticipated for the investment that was made in a public process. She felt a few people were aware of the project but the process had only skimmed the surface. She expected to hear people with opposing views debating in public, broadly publicized meetings in every neighborhood, and a City Club meeting with two opposing views on how to proceed. She was distressed that the council was ready to make a decision without public input. She said there were claims that deferred maintenance made it difficult to preserve the existing building but the same thing could occur if maintenance was deferred on a new building. She was willing to change her opinion of the project if there was a broad public desire for a totally new building, but she was not yet convinced of that. She preferred to continue with a public process instead of making an immediate decision that could eliminate other decisions. Mr. Papé disagreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments. He felt that the public forum was well-attended with a broad base of people from the community. He appreciated how the meeting was conducted and how votes were recorded on many different issues. He said the issue had been discussed in the community since 1999 and he received little input in support of retaining the existing facility, including a discussion by the City Club. He thought the building could be preserved for other functions but could no longer serve as a City Hall since it could not accommodate consolidation of City offices, had no main entrance, systems were outdated, and the building did not meet seismic codes for an emergency facility. He was ready to move on and believed the community was as well. Mr. Kelly thought the process had been good, was widely reported in the press at each stage, and the meetings were well publicized. He agreed with Mr. Papé that public participation could be encouraged but not forced and the milestones established by the process should be followed unless there was a compelling reason to modify them. He noted that with the exception of the second renovation option, there was relatively little cost variation among the options. He felt that other criteria beside cost should drive the council’s decision and there was value to preserving the existing building and offering it for an alternate use. Ms. Bettman said she received extensive feedback from two forum participants with differing opinions. She agreed that the council committed to a timeline and there were decisions that had to be made as it was not feasible to submit every possible variation to the public for comment. She did not object to the proposed motion, but thought the decision should be based on very technical analyses and that case needed to be made to the public. She said that the process used to develop the cost estimates for options should be transparent and available to the public to avoid casting doubt on whether the council made a decision without substanti- ating the fiscal implications of each option. Mr. Poling indicated he had a bias toward taking some action related to City Hall. He was pleased with how the process was going to address issues one at a time and narrow the decision-making process based on public input. He said those to whom he had spoken and who had attended the public sessions felt the same way. He was ready to move to the next step. He was not concerned with site selection at this point and would await public comment. He was pleased with the work done to date on the City Hall complex project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she received little feedback from the public. She attended a Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting in June and most of those present were supportive of the need for a new building. Her impression of the current building was that it was not very welcoming for the public or user friendly. She felt that the public participation process to date had been adequate. Ms. Solomon echoed support for the process. She said the design team made a presentation to the Active Bethel Citizens for the purpose of introducing the topic and linking people to opportunities for public input. She asked if the expectation was that people attend each of the forums or if each forum was a different opportunity to comment on the project. Mr. Cohen said that the forums were iterative and each built on information from the previous one. He said that was explained to participants and they were encouraged to continue to attend all of the forums. He said written information was provided at each forum to bring new participants up-to-date and a brief review was presented at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Piercy observed that general discussion of a new City Hall complex at this point in the process was not as exciting to the public as the council would wish, but interest was likely to increase as a vision emerged. She indicated she was willing to extend an invitation to people to return to participate in subsequent meetings. Ms. Taylor, referring to the limited amount of time in the forums for public process, said the City Hall charettes conducted a few years ago were all-day meetings that allowed time for in-depth discussions. Her conversations with participants indicated a preponderance of opinion to preserve the existing building. She said too often earlier public input on an issue was forgotten in favor of a new planning process. Ms. Bettman asked if videos of the meetings were being cablecast. City Manager Taylor said the meetings were held in locations where a cablecast was not possible. Ms. Bettman asked staff to announce the dates of meetings and contact information as the council work session was being cablecast. She asked if part of the analysis would consider the value and marketability of the existing building. Mr. Cohen said that would be included in the site evaluation process. Mr. Hacker added that the economic value of the existing building would be assessed, including how it could be used in other ways. Ms. Bettman observed that the recommendation in the agenda packet was for the two new options in the agenda materials. Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell said the proposed motion did specifically carry forward those two options but emphasized that the options were not architectural solutions; they were mental models to assist the council in thinking about the differences among renovate, hybrid and new options. He said when the process was completed a specific architectural design would be developed that might be based on one of the two models but could be somewhat different. He said the council could amend the motion to provide greater flexibility. Mr. Kelly asked for assurance that both the generic full- and half-block options were actively studied but did not exclude other possibilities, such as a two-thirds block option. He agreed with Ms. Bettman about making the derivation of the cost estimates very visible to the public. He thought the attachments in the agenda packet did a good job of providing that information, with the exception of previous broad project costs. He suggested those be broken down into tables to explain how they were determined. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman regarding preserving the existing building. He said that the site selection process should include solid information and feedback from the community about potential reuse of the building. City Manager Taylor replied that while that information would not be a part of the formal site MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 3 Work Session selection analysis, it should be possible to ascertain the level of community interest in alternate uses for the building prior to the next work session. Mr. Penwell said that Planning and Development Department staff could assist in that effort and use their contacts in the community and among nonprofit agencies to determine interest in the building. He understood the request to be: 1) determine the potential market value of the site and 2) determine if there is community interest in paying that market value to acquire the building for reuse. Mr. Papé agreed that a full analysis of the existing facility was necessary along with a determination of the community’s interest in preserving it. He said that some in the community viewed the building as period architecture. Ms. Piercy remarked that there had been some discussion of the building’s appropriateness for a visual art center or cultural center. She said there could also be a discussion of how to connect a new building to the public, perhaps through including a visual arts or cultural center to provide connection and access. Mr. Poling urged that the site selection process include an early determination that any potential site owned by another governmental entity would be available for acquisition because the owner was willing to sell. Ms. Bettman said that new options reviewed at a previous meeting included a non-contiguous Police services function. She said the proposed motion was not explicit that the new construction options were those included in the agenda packet or included non-contiguous options. Mr. Cohen said the intent was to carry forward with the council’s direction at a previous meeting regarding police consolidation. Mr. Penwell clarified that the intent of the process was to address three major issues: 1) police consolidation, 2) renovate, new or hybrid, and 3) site. He said each issue was to be analyzed individually with multiple options, those options reduced and the issue returned for consideration during the conceptual design phase. He said all options for police consolidation were still on the table and the council was not being asked to make further decisions on that; renovate, hybrid and new options were being considered as a separate issue. Ms. Bettman said it appeared that the motion would include the two options in the agenda materials, plus the options with a non-contiguous police function. Mr. Penwell said the options in their full presentation at the community forums and workshop did include all options. Ms. Bettman said the motion was about all options presented at the last work session, both contiguous and non-contiguous, and she would vote against the motion. Mr. Kelly supported involving Planning and Development Department staff in determining community interest in the current building. He was interested in obtaining responses to an informal and well-publicized request to solicit interest from entities in the community about possible reuse of the building, along with possible scenarios regarding the City’s role in preparing the facility for sale, from staff prior to the council’s next decision meeting. He said that did not exclude analysis of the site as one of the preferred sites. He asked staff for an action plan at the council’s August meeting related to providing that information. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to eliminate the “Renovation” and “Hybrid” options and adopt “New” construction options for use in future planning studies until the council is prepared to adopt a single option in relation to an overall development plan. Ms. Taylor questioned why an organization would buy the existing building if it was determined by the City to be in such bad shape that it would cost more to renovate than build new. She said if the current building MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 4 Work Session was abandoned for City uses and made available for other purposes it would make a great site for a youth center. Ms. Bettman said that upgrading and expanding the current building for all of the City functions it needed to accommodate was a lot different than recycling it for another purpose. She said she was unclear about the options before the council and urged the design team to be much more explicit in the information it provided to the public. Mr. Papé noted that feedback from the Chamber of Commerce urged the council to fill potholes before moving on the City Hall issue. He said it was important to address other critical City issues before trying to obtain community support to finance a new City Hall. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 5 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 24, 2006–Executive Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060725m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/25/06 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 8/3 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/3 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 24, 2006 8:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION Her Honor Mayor Piercy called the council to order and convened an executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(a). The meeting adjourned at noon. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 1 Executive Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 25, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060725m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/25/06 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 8/3 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/3 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/8 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session/Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 25, 2006 1:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION The council met in executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(a). B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the Eugene City Council into regular session at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to initiate a background and reference check on Christina Beamud. Mr. Kelly said the pool of applicants was great and Ms. Beamud had a solid background. He suggested that those doing the site visit consider the areas for further research identified by the community panel. Mayor Piercy said the council was lucky to have a good pool of candidates and that the candidate selected to move forward in the process was experienced. She concurred with Mr. Kelly’s suggestion. Mr. Papé expressed thanks to the community panel for its input. He also thanked consultant Gary Blackmer for his assistance, perspective, and expertise. Mr. Poling indicated he would not be able to support the motion but would support the majority decision of the council in regard to the selected candidate. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting no. The meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2006 Page 1 Executive Session/Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 25, 2006 Page 2 Executive Session/Work Session