Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 3A - Minutes Approval
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 11, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2005, Work Session, February 14, 2005, Work Session, February 14, 2005, City Council Meeting, February 16, 2005, Work Session, February 23, 2005, Work Session, February 25-26, 2005, Goal Setting Session, February 28, 2005, Work Session, February 28, 2005, City Council Meeting, March 7, 2005, Work Session, March 7, 2005, City Council Meeting, and March 9, 2005, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. February 9, 2005, Work Session B. February 14, 2005, Work Session C. February 14, 2005, City Council Meeting D. February 16, 2005, Work Session E. February 23, 2005, Work Session F. February 25-26, 2005, Goal-Setting Session G. February 28, 2005, Work Session H. February 28, 2005, City Council Meeting I. March 7, 2005, Work Session J. March 7, 2005, City Council Meeting K. March 9, 2005, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050411\S0504113A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 9, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Remand of Hospital Ordinance No. 20299 City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the ordinance in question was adopted a year ago when the council was seeking to facilitate the location of a hospital somewhere in Eugene. The ordinance allowed for the location of a hospital in most parts of Eugene. He termed it a broad-brush approach to locating a hospital due to the uncertainty of where the hospitals would eventually be. Subsequently, the decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals by the Coalition for Health Options in Central Eugene-Springfield (CHOICES). The court ruled that hospitals could not be located as an outright use in a residential zone as it may or may not be consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; it depended on the nature of the hospital in question. The same was true of industrial zones. Mr. Klein said that the ordinance was not back before the City Council so there was no urgency for action. However, staff had some recommendations for proceeding. He noted the relocation of McKenzie- Willamette/Triad to the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site was not firm. Mr. Klein said the council could choose to repeal the entire ordinance, retain those elements of the ordinance not challenged by the petitioners, or develop a response to address some of the issues raised by the court with regard to the industrial and residential zones. The City could not deal with the remand with simple factual findings. Mr. Klein noted that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) described the options in more detail. Mr. Klein suggested councilors declare potential conflicts of interest at this point. Mr. Pryor declared a potential conflict of interest due to his wife's employment with McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Ms. Ortiz declared a similar potential conflict because of her employment with PeaceHealth. Mr. Klein said that the conflicts at this point were potential, and the councilors could participate in the discussion. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Taylor wanted to repeal the ordinance as she thought its initial adoption was a mistake, particularly in regard to its application to residential areas. She had been happy to hear of the ordinance's remand. Ms. Bettman said things had changed since the adoption of the ordinance. When the council had adopted the ordinance, no site for a new hospital in Eugene had yet been identified, and the council's focus was on MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 1 Work Session creating the broadest possible opportunity to locate a hospital. Now McKenzie-Willamette/Triad was interested in the EWEB site. She said the City's interest in the site was only as a site for a hospital. If McKenzie-Willamette/Triad had not chosen the site, the City would not be involved in the relocation question at all. Ms. Bettman wanted the council to focus on how to facilitate a hospital at the EWEB site. She did not think the City should change the EWEB property's zoning for anything else at this time. Mr. Pap6 arrived. Ms. Bettman suggested the council could create a site-specific zoning overlay for the EWEB site to facilitate a hospital at that location. Mr. Klein said that the council could create a special overlay zone. He believed it would be necessary to change the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) designation for the industrially zoned portion of the site as well to facilitate a hospital. Steve Nystrom of the Planning Division concurred. He said that the council could adopt special districts for a variety of uses, but that required plan support for implementation. He noted the industrial part of the EWEB site was designated for heavy industrial use. That was a stumbling block. Ms. Bettman asked what parameters existed for properties zoned commercial to accommodate a hospital. Mr. Nystrom said that hospitals were conditionally permitted in the Community Commercial (C-2) and Major Commercial (C-3) zones. They were not an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-l) or Cormnercial/Industrial (C-4) zones or in the General Office (GO) zone. Ms. Bettman said the council would need to proceed carefully. She favored repealing the ordinance and pursuing a specific code change. Mr. Kelly also favored repealing the ordinance as he agreed it was overly broad. He had argued at the time of its passage for a more specific approach, working cooperatively with the two hospital providers. He said the commercial part of the ordinance, which was not overturned by the courts, was also very broad. Hospitals of the scale envisioned were unusual uses and the best way to accommodate those uses was to work with the providers and design what met their goals and the City's goals. He agreed a site- specific overlay zone was the better way to go. He looked to both hospital providers to assist with the City in that effort, noting that a representative of PeaceHealth was present. Mr. Kelly noted that another option listed in the agenda packet was to initiate a Metro Plan amendment on the EWEB site now; that seemed premature to him. He wanted to see a simultaneous process where a development agreement was signed on the property transfer and work on the Metro Plan amendment commenced. Mr. Poling acknowledged the concerns voiced by councilors, but pointed out the council had passed a goal to facilitate a hospital being located south of the river. The council needed to have something in place to allow for that if another hospital provider entered the picture. He questioned how the City would address a situation where a new hospital wanted to locate at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street, for example. He asked if the City would take a site-specific approach to that or attempt to modify the current ordinance. He thought the City needed to be flexible, and he questioned if a site-specific plan would provide that. Ms. Bettman did not object to flexibility but pointed out the ordinance did not limit the hospital to a location south of the river. It worked against the council's objectives of locating a hospital on the EWEB site and facilitating ongoing negotiations by opening up competing pieces of commercially zoned property MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 2 Work Session for further negotiation, complicating the issue and increasing the expense. She wanted to focus on the City's objectives and accommodate PeaceHealth's plans at its Hilyard site and complete negotiations for the EWEB site. She agreed the City did not want to act prematurely in changing the designation on the EWEB site. Mr. Kelly understood Mr. Poling's points and said he did not want to place a roadblock in the way of a new provider. However, he thought it unlikely such a party would enter the picture. He suggested that given the text of the motion passed, a site-specific overlay could be done to cover the entire north river bank. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the current ordinance could also facilitate a hospital at another location other than the EWEB site, which was also a concern to him. Mr. Kelly believed that staff had been responsive to the McKenzie-Willamette/Triad situation and could be equally responsive to a new party entering the picture, or in the event the EWEB property did not work out. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated his agreement with Mr. Klein that it would be premature to act on the issues associated with the remand until some of the other issues played themselves out further, allowing the City to develop a specific response. Mr. Pap6 determined from City Manager Taylor that EWEB had not yet signed an agreement with McKenzie-Willamette/Triad to sell its site. Mr. Kelly noted that the commissioners had authorized funding for preliminary design work to determine the costs of moving the utility. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Klein that the council was not obligated to act on the remand by any particular date. Responding to a question from City Manager Taylor, Mr. Klein confirmed that the ordinance and the provisions that would have enabled PeaceHealth to make changes to its site without a conditional use permit were not in effect. The changes the council made in October 2003 were not in effect. Ms. Bettman repeated her suggestion that the council develop site-specific zones, one for the new hospital site and one for the existing PeaceHealth site. However, she did not think the council should open every zone to a hospital use as it conflicted with the City's goals. Mr. Solomon asked if the City was hampering PeaceHealth's ability to move forward through any of its actions. City Manager Taylor reiterated that, in the absence of the ordinance, the hospital would have to go through the conditional use permit process. Mr. Kelly asked if the conditional use permit process was a burden for PeaceHealth and if the council could be more surgical in its implementation. He suggested that PeaceHealth inform the City of its needs in that regard. Ms. Taylor believed the council should wait to see what was presented to it before acting. Mayor Piercy determined that staff would return to the council with more specific information about the two hospitals' plans for the future. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Modifications to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Intergovernmental Agreement The council was joined by Peter Ruffler of the Wastewater Division and Jerry Lidz of the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Ruffler introduced Susie Smith, General Manager of the Metropolitan Wastewater Manage- ment Commission (MWMC), Bob Duey, Chief Financial Officer of the MWMC, and Dave Jewett, legal counsel for the MWMC. He said that the council was not being asked to take action on the item today. He apologized that the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was not available, noting that it had undergone several revisions since it was presented to the commission and staff still did not have a final working draft. He said staff still believed it was worth having the work session so the council could raise questions and provide staff with revisions it would like to see to the IGA. Mr. Ruffler provided background on the formation of the MWMC, which was created through an IGA between Eugene, Lane County, and Springfield. Mr. Ruffler indicated the modifications to the IGA being proposed now were relatively straightforward, mirroring current operations and practices, and would not change relationships between the parties to the IGA. They would result in an agreement more aligned with current administrative and operational practices and more consistent with regional policies and procedures. Mr. Ruffler said the most controversial changes were those related to the recommendations received from financial advisors and bond counsel and the implementation of the capital improvements projects list, which was estimated to be $144 million over a 20-year period. Most of those costs were front-loaded over the first five to ten years of the planning period. Consistent with financial planning criteria and conditions in the IGA, the MWMC proposed to supplement the funding for those improvements by issuing revenue bonds. Mr. Ruffler said that when the MWMC was first formed it did not have statutory authority to issue revenue bonds, and construction of the original treatment facility was handled by the County Service District. Those bonds were retired in 1997, and the commission is currently debt-free. The changes being proposed were necessary to reflect the changes in the authorities to allow the MWMC to issue revenue bonds. Mr. Ruffler said in preparation for the £mancing necessary for the facilities plan, the commission hired a financial planner to review the underlying documentation and IGA; that planner recommended some changes to the IGA. Subsequent reviews by the County's financial planner and City's bond counsel also indicated a need for further changes before revenue bonds could be issued by the MWMC. Those recommendations were yet to be reconciled. That was the stage of the process the IGA was at now. Mr. Lidz discussed why the council was considering the IGA at this time, when in the past it was amended by the City Manager. Mr. Lidz said the revisions that the council would see involve the council's commitment on behalf of the City to perform certain acts in the future, such as setting user rates and systems development charges (SDCs). The manager could not make those commitments. Mr. Lidz provided additional background on the issue. He said the discussions that had occurred to this point involved balancing the requirements for access to the bond market with retention of as much governing body authority as was consistent with that access. He said that the bond counsel and bond market state that to sell bonds, one must make a firm commitment that the revenue will be in place to pay MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 4 Work Session the bonds. He had assumed on behalf of the council that it did not want to make more of a commitment than was necessary. Mr. Lidz recalled that when the original IGA was entered into, it was signed at a time when the facility was operating under a loan from the federal government. The IGA required the individual jurisdictions to comply with a specific federal regulation in setting user rates. He did not think that was ever an issue since the user rates were always more than the federal regulation required because MWMC was doing more things with the rates than were needed to pay off the loan. Continuing, Mr. Lidz said, in this case, another way to consider the issue was if the City itself was deciding whether to construct the facilities that the MWMC would build on its own rather than through an intergovernmental entity and had to issue revenue bonds, which kind of commitments would it have to make? He said it would have to set user rates and adopt SDCs at a level that could pay off the bond debt and maintain the facilities in a condition that the bond holders knew they could continue to keep operating and generate revenue. Mr. Lidz said bond counsels take a more paranoid view of things as it was their job to assure the bond market that the bonds were secure. They will look to translate those general commitments into a number of specific promises. He assumed the target would be to secure an A rating for the bonds to reduce the interest expense or the cost of insuring the bonds. He said the better the bond rating, the less it cost. However, to get that good bond rating, one must make specific commitments. In this case, the City was not selling the bonds, MWMC was, and it does not set user rates or establish SDCs. When MWMC wants to sell bonds, the underwriters and the potential purchasers of the bonds would want to know where the revenues would come from, and would look to the terms of the IGA to determine the strength of the commitment of the parties to the IGA. Mr. Lidz indicated that staff would return to the council with the IGA in the near future. Mayor Piercy invited questions and comments. Ms. Taylor commended the staff presentation for its clarity. She determined from Mr. Lidz that the City of Springfield would sign the same agreement. Mr. Lidz said the County would sign the IGA as well. Ms. Taylor asked if the County was involved in the guarantee. Mr. Lidz reiterated the County would sign the IGA. However, he pointed out the County neither imposed SDCs nor adopted user rates, but was a party to the agreement. He attributed that to the County's historic involvement and the fact the board believed it had an interest in representing the rate payers who reside in the county but pay the user rates set by the two cities. Mr. Pryor asked who would be responsible if the revenues to repay the loan were not available. Mr. Lidz said the bond holders had no other recourse, which was why those who market the bonds want to ensure there is a strong commitment to the IGA. The bonds were not backed by the general obligation of the City. The City had no obligation to back the bonds with revenue as long as it complied with the terms of the IGA. Ms. Bettman suggested the IGA was another reason special service districts were a bad idea. They created such conflicts, and the City could not be consistent in the same way as it could if it had ultimate authority and was not sharing it with another body. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Ruffler confirmed that staff had done a preliminary estimate that indicated it would require a 65 percent increase in user rates if the MWMC had to depend on user fees alone to underwrite capital costs. Ms. Bettman suggested the City had no alternative but to build the needed infrastructure, and asked what happened if those improvements did not occur. Mr. Ruffler responded a substantial portion of the projects identified were necessary to handle wet weather flows and the timing of construction was determined by the State. If the City was not able to go forward with those projects, it would increase its risk of violating its permit law and incurring penalties. Ms. Bettman appreciated staff's diligence in the matter. She recalled the council's discussion when it adopted the facilities plan, and at that time she had expressed regret the community would never capture in SDCs what was needed for new capacity, and some of that the burden was being shifted to the rate payers. However, it was obvious to her that the infrastructure was needed, and although she disagreed with the financing mechanism, she had supported the facilities plan. Ms. Bettman saw no alternative but to create the strongest IGA possible. Mr. Lidz said another reason to use revenue bonds was because they allowed the community to spread the cost of projects out over more time and capture revenue from new users moving in to the community. If the MWMC front-loaded the costs with a rate increase now, that meant only current users paid. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Lidz that general obligation bonds could be used to underwrite the cost of projects if the projects in question were City projects. Mr. Pap6 asked if the City of Coburg was party to the discussions about the IGA. Mr. Ruffler said no, as that presumed that Coburg would join the MWMC. That had not yet been decided. Mr. Lidz added that the IGA did not preclude the addition of Coburg to the system, but the IGA must be amended before that occurred. City Manager Taylor noted that staff was engaged in a study of the technical issues involved in serving Coburg, and would return with a recommendation regarding both technical and governance issues should it be recommended that Coburg be included in the IGA. Mr. Pap6 suggested that Coburg be provided with the draft and solicited for comments. Mr. Pap6 asked how often the jurisdictions reviewed the project list. Mr. Poling indicated it was a five- year list; the first review was scheduled for 2010. Mr. Pap6 asked if the City would need to do capital improvements to meet overflow issues even without new construction. Mr. Ruffler said yes. Mr. Pap6 concluded that existing rate payers were part of the problem. Mr. Kelly suggested that the IGA, if very lengthy, be provided to the council via the internet. Mr. Kelly believed the difference between issuing revenue bonds and not issuing revenue bonds was the 65 percent rate increase, and suggested a more likely scenario if the modifications to the IGA did not satisfy the bond counsel was that the bonds could still be issued but at a lower credit rating, meaning higher interest. Mr. Jewett said that in discussions with the bond counsel and the financial advisors, they indicated the draft IGA had the basic minimum requirements to get access to the debt market. If some substantial changes were not made, it was not just a question of quality of the debt, but whether any MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 6 Work Session underwriters would be willing to buy the bonds. Mr. Kelly hoped the community had another alternative. He did not like the comer the City Council had been painted into by bond counsel. He determined from Mr. Ruffler that the MWMC included three elected officials representing the local jurisdictions and four lay representatives. Eugene had two lay representatives. Mr. Kelly recalled that the council received an e-mail from Roxie Cuellar of the MWMC, who maintained that setting a higher SDC rate to cover the bond payment would be decided by a non-elected board. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Ruffler said the commission recommends rates and SDCs to the elected governing bodies, which then adopted them. Mr. Kelly asked what happened if a community rejected the MWMC's recommendation. Mr. Ruffler said to the extent the rates or charges were necessary to repay bonds, the MWMC could move forward without that approval. Any additional component of the rates that went above that minimum requirement could be refused by the parties to the IGA. City Manager Taylor said the fundamental issue was how to assure the bond holders while still maintaining flexibility for the governing bodies. In the parties to the IGA could not reach an agreement, at a minimum the parties must meet their commitment to the bond holders. Mr. Kelly disliked the fact there was no elected accountable officials on the MWMC if the parties could not reach agreement. The MWMC commissioner could not be voted out of office. He did not know the solution. Ms. Bettman did not think it was a good idea to include Coburg in the review of the IGA. The council should focus on the parties to the IGA as no decision had been reached that Coburg's participation in the MWMC was in the best interest of other governments. She was concerned that the gesture to review the IGA could be misread by Coburg. She hoped any analysis about including Coburg in the IGA had a rigorous financial component because she wanted to avoid any situation where Eugene ratepayers subsidized capacity for Coburg. Mr. Pap6 said he was suggesting the review as a mere courtesy. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Ruffler that Springfield provided financial services for the MWMC, so any analysis of whether bond requirements were met would be done by that city. Mr. Pap6 asked what happened if the estimates were high and the MWMC had more money than it intended to apply to the repayment of bonds. Mr. Duey said that staff would review the numbers annually and make recommenda- tions for the rate component for the debt service through the MWMC for the cities to consider. The community could also choose to either lower the rate based on the debt service, or raise it based on the debt service. Mr. Kelly was concerned that the IGA eliminated the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) as a dispute resolution body and called for the formation of a new dispute resolution body. Mr. Lidz responded that one reason was that the two councils might want to appoint their MWMC representative to a dispute resolution committee. Mr. Ruffler pointed out that the MPC included representatives from other bodies without an interest in the wastewater program. Mr. Kelly appreciated both answers but neither satisfied him. He thought it could be resolved by modifying the bylaws of the MPC to accommodate the dispute resolution role, and suggested that a community's MWMC representatives could be involved in the discussion. Mr. Poling agreed that the MPC should be the dispute resolution body. He thought the MWMC MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 7 Work Session representatives could be a useful source of information as opposed to being part of the dispute resolution body. Regarding the facility plan, he questioned the council's comfort level with that timeline. Mr. Lidz said before MWMC could issue revenue bonds, they must be approved by the council after a public hearing. The council would be aware of the amount of the bond. At this time, Mayor Piercy concluded the published agenda and recognized Ms. Bettman, reminding the council that Ms. Bettman had e-mailed notice of her intent to offer a motion the previous day. Given the complexity of the topic in question, Mayor Piercy suggested that the item be tabled to give the council more time for discussion in a work session setting. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to obtain a professional appraisal of the McDougal property that is the subject of consideration for a Santa Clara Park. Specifically, the 77 acre site outside the urban growth boundary that staff is considering for a re- gional park and including a discreet appraisal of the 40 acres considered to eventually be most likely the developed portion of the park. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation at the Mayor's suggestion for a work session, which she would welcome. However, she did not think that superceded the need for the information the appraisal would provide. When she talked about the issue with citizens, one of the first things they asked about was the value of the property. She said the work session could follow the appraisal. She questioned how one could weigh the benefits of a proposal given the range of values provided by EcoNorthwest. No money to develop, so even if acquired, would be a long time before it could be developed. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to table the motion to March 7, 2004. Mr. Kelly indicated opposition to the motion to table because he did not think the processes were competing and the information provided by the assessment would be useful. He said the council could get the information soon and cheaply. Mr. Pryor asked if having an appraisal would impede or create a hardship in the discussion around the transaction. City Manager Taylor did not think so. He thought the question was whether it was premature. He thought a general discussion of land exchanges first would be desirable. Mr. Solomon questioned how useful the appraisal would be at this point. She thought it premature to commission an appraisal and said she needed to get up to speed on the issue. Ms. Ortiz did not want to table the issue because the Santa Clara neighbors would meet on the issue before March 7. She thought it would be useful to have preliminary numbers before that time. Ms. Taylor thought the council needed all the information possible if it was to discuss the issue. The motion to table failed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting yes. The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to com- mission an appraisal on the 130 acres owned by the McDougals in the Laurel- wood area. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 14, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy called the council' s attention to an article in the latest edition of Sunset magazine featuring the arts in Eugene. Mr. Poling said he received an e-mail update from Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2 Manager Bob Pirrie regarding the I-105 resurfacing project. He had learned that most of the work was being done at night and the project was not affecting traffic yet. The overpass on Coburg Road would be shut down in mid-April for 12 days, and traffic rerouted onto surface roads coming in and out of Eugene. He encouraged people to plan ahead and take alternative routes to their place of destination. Mr. Poling wished the State of Oregon a happy birthday. Ms. Bettman congratulated the City and the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) for entering into a sales agreement for the former Sears property. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council received an administrative order increasing land use planning fees. She appreciated the proactive increase, noting the subsidy to the service from the General Fund in fiscal year (FY) 2004 was nearly $900,000. She asked the manager to project the service's General Fund subsidy for FY2006 prior to the annual budget review. Speaking to the issue of the overpass closure, Ms. Ortiz asked those residents who were viewing the meeting to be more aware of emergency vehicles when they were traveling in the Coburg Road area during the time the roads would be impacted by construction. Mr. Pryor said he, Mayor Piercy, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Pap6 attended a dinner for Congressman Peter DeFazio the previous night, which he characterized as successful. Ms. Taylor also wished happy birthday to Oregon. Ms. Taylor said that she received several constituent complaints that Animal Control had been patrolling MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 1 Work Session south Eugene very heavily, although there were no stray animals in that part of the community. She said residents had asked how Animal Control was able to patrol all the time when the agency was supposed to be short of money. Ms. Taylor expressed disappointment the City had not taken advantage of a grant from the State to buy property on Dillard Street and Nectar Way. Ms. Taylor said that residents living on Whitbeck Boulevard were told any damage to their private road resulting from the construction of a new three-home development would be repaired and paid for by the developer. The road had been damaged and the developer had refused to pay for it. She said the residents were hoping the City would follow up and see to it the repairs were made. Mr. Pap6 determined from City Manager Taylor that the agreement with ORI was consistent with the information the council had reviewed earlier. City Manager Taylor noted that as a result of the agreement, the City would be responsible for demolition. He anticipated that the City would soon go to bid for asbestos abatement related to the demolition. Mr. Pap6 wished the American Cancer Society well in its annual fund-raising effort. Mr. Pap6 said he had recently attended the quarterly board meeting of the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). There was much going on at the State legislature, and the LOC would need help in lobbying for issues important to Oregon cities. He anticipated that individual councilors would be contacted to lobby on certain issues by either the LOC or the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Speaking to the Nectar Way issue, Mr. Pap6 expressed sympathy for the nearby residents' desires that the land be purchased for open space, but said a recent mailing from the Parks and Open Space Division regarding the comprehensive parks plan indicated there was a shortage of park land in his ward in north Eugene. Until there was more equity in the allocation of park land throughout the community, he would be hard-pressed to support additional parks and open space acquisitions in south Eugene, which was already well-served in that regard. Mr. Kelly recalled that at the January 10, 2005, meeting, he had asked for a memorandum updating the council on the Nectar Way situation. He did not recall receiving that update. City Manager Taylor said that information was provided to Ms. Taylor that might not have been provided to other councilors, and agreed to follow-up. Mr. Kelly referred to the administrative order increasing land use planning fees, and expressed satisfaction that the fees were arrived at after considerable study and were not the result of arbitrary capriciousness. Mr. Kelly congratulated the City for the purchase-sale agreement with ORI. City Manager Taylor commended Mike Sullivan and Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department for their work with ORI in bringing the matter to a conclusion. City Manager Taylor commended the Eugene Stream Team for all the work that the team had been doing recently. He expressed appreciation for the volunteers who worked so hard through the rain to plant hundreds of trees along the north bank bicycle trail. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Street Assessment Policies City Engineer Mark Schoening joined the council for the item. He provided a PowerPoint presentation on Eugene's street assessment policies. Copies of the presentation were provided to the council. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Schoening said residents pay for their side of the width of a local street, the width of which could be from 20 to 24 feet, depending on the parking provided. That was the same amount a resident living along a collector street would be assessed for improvements, although in the case of a collector, the City would assume more of the costs for street lights and traffic calming. Ms. Taylor suggested that residents living on a collector lost their ability to choose whether to be assessed or not. Ms. Taylor asked how many people had lost their homes because of street assessments. Mr. Schoening believed there was a situation in the River Road/Santa Clara area that involved a sewer assessment on an undeveloped property. Ms. Taylor believed there had been situations where a street assessment exceeded the value of the property being assessed. She observed that some communities pay for such street improvements by issuing bonds, while others use General Funds. Ms. Taylor continued to be disturbed about the City's use of the term "benefited properties," suggesting it should be "abutting properties" because frequently residents did not benefit from street projects and were actually harmed by the changes to the their streets. In addition, she believed properties on side streets may benefit more than those being assessed. Ms. Taylor asked if people in the West University Neighborhood were accepting of the alley improvement project. Mr. Schoening said that many of the property owners were absentee landowners, and the City had not had a lot of contact with them. PeaceHealth, which was being assessed for alley improvements, was supportive of the project. He had heard no negative feedback from other property owners being assessed. Ms. Taylor found that interesting given the negative feedback the City heard in other places in regard to street assessments. Mr. Pap6 recalled that the council subcommittee that had worked on the City's assessment policies had been formed to make the policies more equitable. It had examined many different approaches before developing its recomtnendations to the council. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Schoening that the City used systems development charge (SDC) revenues to underwrite the public cost of arterials and collectors. SDC revenues could not be spent on local streets. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Schoening the City could deviate from its street design standards in areas with slopes, waterways, and vegetation using the context-sensitive design process. Mr. Schoening said that would allow the City to take into account the topography and character of a neighborhood. He hoped staff had conveyed that message at the work session on the Crest Drive street classification issue. Mr. Schoening said the question in regard to the Crest Drive area was whether the City could do the design work without the need to initiate a local improvement district (LID) and then recover those costs if the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 3 Work Session project went forward. Subsequently, the City Attorney determined that could be done. Mr. Papfi suggested the City faced a "chicken and egg" situation. He asked how the City Council was to proceed. City Manager Taylor suggested one approach was to set aside a certain amount of money each year that the City would use on a council-initiated LID based on better information about the exact design. That was a substantial departure for current practice, however. Mr. Papd asked if the City could offer neighborhoods the option of lessening the cost and increasing the environmental impact with context- sensitive design standards that left ditches in place, for example. Mr. Schoening suggested the design standards could increase the cost and lessen the environmental impact. A ditch may require additional right-of-way and could cost more to design and construct. City Manager Taylor suggested the question before the council was the degree of risk it was willing to take in initiating projects that may not end up in an LID that would survive the remonstrance process. Mr. Papfi asked how the council could work with the department discussing alternatives to the standards that were currently in place for local streets. Mr. Schoening said as mentioned during the Crest Drive work session, the City had the flexibility within the current standards to do something different. However, determining what that was and how it would affect individual properties required the initiation of the design, funded up front. Staff estimated it would cost $240,000 to tell residents what the streets would look like and how the drainage system would work. Mr. Kelly clarified that there was a potential that the council could fund the design work for the Crest Drive area before the formation of the LID, assuming the risk those design costs would not be recovered. Mr. Schoening concurred. Mr. Kelly said he was willing to look at potential changes to the street assessment system, but the council committee he and Mr. Papfi served on had worked extensively to develop the current system. It was not perfect, but it was the best the committee could do. Mr. Kelly discussed the staff-proposed options for initiating street improvements outside a petition poll; he said the assessment for local streets was a targeted fee on property owners living adjacent to the street. In the case of arterials and collectors, which have an area-wide benefit, he could understand why the council might need to make a politically unpopular decision and force the assessment. However, in the case of a local street, the condition of the street had the most impact on local residents, and he wanted to ensure that those streets used the petition poll system. If those residents did not feel the improvement necessary, he did not think the council should impose the improvement. Mr. Kelly would consider exceptions in cases where a street's function bordered between local and collector and there was a wider area benefit. Another exception he would consider was the situation the council faced in the West University Neighborhood, where there was a wide disconnect between those that used and those that owned a property. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's comments. She said one of the options prepared by staff involved the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars and she was not prepared to support that given the other demands on those funds. She said staff referred to the Acorn Park project in the presentation and the use of CDBG dollars in that case was to facilitate pedestrian access to the park. That raised another issue for her, which was the City's ability to ensure that infrastructure was in place when low-income, high-density housing was built. She said the City may have to start looking at those MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 4 Work Session kinds of issues when it considered additional densification and intensification of use. In regard to the rezoning of Crescent, she asked if the City had looked at the rezoning it had done in that area to assess the impact of that on the transportation system in a comprehensive way, as opposed to looking at each change "in a vacuum." While staff frequently maintained that there was no impact from such rezonings, they all have a cumulative impact on the system. She said that the City may have to change its policies to require upfront help with the infrastructure when such zone changes occur. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Schoening said the City offered a deferral of the street assessment payment to some later date when the property changed hands. Mayor Piercy asked about the nature of the subsidy available. Mr. Schoening said it ranged from one-third to five-sixths of the assessment and was based on income level without regard to age. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly discussed funding the City's share of the cost of local assessment projects. He said that the first question that came to mind was the cost of that, and how often it happened. If the petition poll process was rarely successful, he believed the City share was a pretty small number in absolute dollars. He asked for a better sense of that. Mr. Kelly did not like the 100 percent rule, although he understood why the City took that approach with regard to alleys. He thought it removed the fairness from the process and spread the unfairness to more property owners. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the use of CDBG dollars, Mr. Kelly said he was not suggesting any changes, but different cities use that money for very different things. In Eugene, the money was used to fund capital improvement for nonprofit organizations. He said he would like to have a council work session on the origin of that tradition, what other communities do, and if periodically the council should revisit the issue. City Manager Taylor said he had served in other communities where CDBG dollars were used both in eligible areas and for eligible individuals as part of an overall strategy to upgrade certain areas. It provided an additional equity for people sustaining the costs of an LID. It had been a very successful approach because it provided an incentive for people to get their roads improved and in the long-term improved the value of their property. In all such cases, there were community-wide maintenance districts in which all participated. C. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(h), the council entered into executive session. Following the executive session, Mayor Piercy reconvened the council to take action on the Consent Calendar. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 5 Work Session 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 3, 2005, State of the City Address January 10, 2005 ,Work Session January 10, 2005, City Council Meeting January 24, 2005, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4824, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4816 (Arthur C. Carmichael, Jr. and Larry Von Klein). D. Adoption of Resolution 4825, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4815 (1375 Olive, LLC). Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Ms. Taylor asked to remove Item B from the Consent Calendar. The motion to adopt the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item B, passed unanimously. The council agreed to revisit Item B at the regular meeting. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall February 14, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pap6. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy announced that she had signed a proclamation recognizing the 100th anniversary of Rotary International on February 25, 2005. She expressed her thanks on behalf of the City of Eugene for its service to the community in numerous ways. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, stated that he had distributed copies of an article from the February 13, 2005, edition of the Oregonian entitled Lessons from Washington - First of a two-part series, A study in higher ed success, Washington's commitment to colleges pays educational and ecomomic dividends Oregon lacks. He said the article presented a comparison between the University of Washington and the University of Oregon (UO), and asked the councilors to read the article. Mr. Miller urged councilors to also read a booklet entitled Pioneers Administrators of the University of Oregon, which was available at the UO bookstore. He expressed concern that the Pioneers Administrators of the University of Oregon did not accurately depict the UO's leadership. David Helton, 878 Glory Drive, spoke on behalf of the Woodmen of the World/Community Center for the Performing Arts (WOW/CCPA). Mr. Helton addressed the Housing Policy Board (HPB) Request for Proposal (RFP) process for affordable housing on property adjacent to the WOW Hall's property. He said the CCPA Board of Directors had endorsed the Metropolitan Affordable Housing (Metro) proposal on the following conditions: 1) the WOW Hall be allowed to purchase a lot adjacent to the WOW Hall referred to as the back lot; and 2) Metro be required to make the investments in the WOW Hall and to Metro's building to address noise abatement concerns. He added that the WOW Hall, Metro, and the City of Eugene had agreed to the conditions. Mr. Helton reported that some members of the corntnunity were claiming that the residential development would cause the WOW Hall to be shut down. Conversely, the WOW Hall board and staff acknowledged the facility existed in an urban community and that the area around the facility was bound to redevelop. He added it provided an opportunity to make investments in the WOW Hall to address existing noise concerns. Metro had committed to funding several thousands of dollars in noise abatement measures. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session He said a full noise attenuation upgrade would be paid by the WOW Hall through fundraising efforts and possibly with some assistance from the City of Eugene. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, expressed concern that the steam plant at the riverfront would be torn down to build a ditch to bring cars to the edge of the river, and noted that the building had potential to be used as a museum. He heard that there had been discussion by the Alumni Association about using Agate Hall as a site for a new alumni center, and hoped there would be adequate opportunity for public input. He said the Joe Romania showroom had been featured on the cover of City of Eugene Preservation Notes. Mr. Vishanoff said the proposed basketball arena was a public issue that should be openly debated in the community and asked Mayor Piercy if there would be a series of debates where the public could ask questions about the proposed project. Mr. Vishanoff expressed concerns related to charter schools, claiming the UO had contributed to development of the controversial federal No Child Left Behind rules that affected charter schools. Scott Purcell, 3425 Strathmore Place, encouraged the City Council to adopt the enterprise zone on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, consistent with the State of Oregon guidelines, without additional guidelines. He said studies by the UO Economics Department cited positive impacts the last enterprise zone had on the community, noting almost 80 small and mid-sized businesses had taken advantage of and benefited from the enterprise zone. He noted that the family-wage jobs come from businesses going to the next level. He said the City Council played an important part in establishing the enterprise zone without additional constraints in order to help those businesses get to the next size that was good for the community. He opined that increasing the hourly wage from $11 to $13 would not realistically enable small businesses to take advantage of the growth coming from the enterprise zone with the wage attachment. Many of the small firms did eventually get into the highly desired, good family-wage jobs. Mr. Purcell stated that an enterprise zone was healthy for the City coffers as the tax base grew over a long period of time, even though taxes were abated initially for a five-year period. W. Bruce Mulligan, 3056 Hendricks Hill Drive, represented the Hendricks Hill Homeowners Association, consisting of approximately 70 property owners. He read a resolution that had been adopted unanimously at the annual association meeting on January 27, 2005, a copy of which had been distributed to council members, that supported any action by the City Council to limit future development through the acquisition of the 120-acre McDougal Property in the Laurel Valley as a natural preserve outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Mulligan added that the association took no position on any other aspect of the proposed transaction. Jana Jackson, 1012 East 22na Avenue, spoke in support of Officer Randy Ellis in his attempts to address trespassing issue with some of the panhandlers and vagrants in Eugene. She said there were many people who were disturbed by the large number of panhandlers approaching people for money, creating hazardous traffic situations and contributing to automobile accidents. She stated people were tired of stepping over the trash, garbage and human waste, and having to clean it up. People felt too intimidated to visit a business, go to their cars, or walk down the street alone, and they were tired of being victimized by burglary, robbery or assault. She submitted a petition with 685 signatures to the City Manager's Office, and noted that additional signatures were being collected. She said that The Register-Guard consistently attacked the Police Department, presenting things as homeless issues when there were several problem groups, including panhandlers; methamphetamine users; criminal mischief-makers engaged in drawing graffiti, tagging trucks and vans, slashing tires, etching windows; criminal transients who came to Eugene and caused problems; and gang-related problems. She noted that her group was not targeting homeless people, adding if that was the only issue in town, it would not be an issue. Ms. Jackson said there were MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session many resources in Eugene to help homeless people. She added that she wanted Eugene to be a welcoming city and destination spot and wanted to see downtown revitalized. She asserted that people would not come downtown if they felt unsafe and uncomfortable. Drix Rixmann, 307.5 East 14th Avenue, announced he had a vision for Eugene and its future. He said the vision was comprised of the economy of Eugene being built on words. He cited several examples of his vision. Mark Robinowitz, 28549 Sutherlin Lane, reported that a legal challenge of Hood River's ban on excessively large stores had been unsuccessful. A town in Oregon had the legal right to challenge excessively large big boxes, in this particular case, Walmart, the largest vendor of"Made in China" products in the world. He stated that there was sentiment for similar action in Eugene to protect local businesses. He added that he was disturbed to recently learn that Home Depot was planning a second store at Seventh Avenue and Seneca Street. He opined that Home Depot had used false pretenses for approval its site review, in particular that the West Eugene Parkway would be completed by 2010, which he maintained the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) said was unlikely. He said the presence of the multi-national corporation located in an inappropriate location would create traffic problems. He added that ODOT was spending $1.7 million to study the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Robinowitz averred that four years ago, the City of Eugene, Lane County, State of Oregon, and the federal government agreed that the "no build" alternative would be picked for the parkway, adding that if that decision had been implemented, the alternative to parkway would have been completed. Charles Tilt, 85581 South Willamette Street, opined he was one of the people David Helton said was predicting that the WOW Hall would be shut down by noise created by residential apartment complexes built in close proximity to the WOW Hall. He said his proposal for renovating the Ridenour Building on the tax lot adjacent to the WOW Hall intended to take advantage of the opportunity represented by WOW Hall customers on the sidewalk prior to, during and after shows. He reported he had financing in place for the purchase of the building, and he was offering $40,000 more than the current market value of the property to the City. He added that he had been assured by City staff that the tax lots could be sold individually, with the proceeds reverting to the CDBG fund for affordable housing elsewhere. Mr. Tilt said the building had been substantially updated in the 1990s, with new roof and sewer line, and could be further renovated. He added keeping the building in place would provide a buffer between the WOW Hall noise and activity, and any new apartment buildings that would be built on the remainder of the block. Keeping the Ridenour Building in place would keep a footprint that would be twice as large as the recently completed 54-unit Aurora Building. He believed the youth focused programming at the WOW Hall was an important cultural asset to Eugene that was at risk in building housing at the site. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris Street, said she had spent four years working on using the Ridenour Building as a community resource. She said she had talked with many community members who felt the best interests of Eugene and WOW Hall would not be served by constructing a $13 million apartment building that would lead to shutting down the WOW Hall, a major venue for youth, one police citation at a time. She said it was a mistake to purchase the property and then specify maximum density housing in the Request for Proposals (RFP). She claimed the HPB often "rubberstamped" Allocation Subcommittee recommendations. Ms. Ging read from written comments from Douglas Beauchamp presented at the February 2, 2005, HPB meeting, that had been distributed to the council. She found numerous incongruities in the process and would provide more information in the future. She expressed concern that the scarce amount of CDBG funds should only be used for low-income persons and families with children, in light of anticipated CDBG cuts at the federal level. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session Charles Peters, 2435 Potter, a volunteer at the WOW Hall and board member of the CCPA, thanked Ms. Ging for speaking on behalf of the CCPA as CCPA member, but reminded the City Council that Ms. Ging did not speak for the CCPA. He added while her opinions were valued, the board did not share her fear that this was the end of the WOW Hall. Mr. Peters stated that if the council did not approve the Metro proposal, it would be the end of the WOW Hall, because the Metro plan was being done with federal funds that required sound mitigation measures. He added that Metro was willing to provide funds to the WOW Hall for a cooler to help attenuate the sound in the summer time. He emphasized that Metro was working with the WOW Hall "left, right and sideways." He added that City staff was working with the WOW Hall, and was researching availability of matching city funds. He concluded that the board was very happy to be working with Metro and very afraid that if the Metro proposal was denied the highest bidder would buy the site and build without any opportunity for input from the WOW Hall. He urged the council to accept the HPB recommendation. He concluded saying that the WOW Hall had been thinking about the changes for a year. Metro was a non-profit organization that was working with the hospital and Lane Community College, to provide housing for students. He emphasized that this was not the end of the world for the WOW Hall. Mayor Piercy called on the council for responses and comments. Councilor Kelly thanked all who spoke. He had two requests of City Manager Taylor. He asked that any written record of the CCPA board's decision and recommendation come to the council before any council action. He said he had not heard that anyone expected the parkway to be completed by 2010. He asked how such a finding was included in the site review for the Home Depot that would seem to contravene fact. He also asked if there was a mechanism in the code that allowed revisiting an approved site review or traffic impact analysis if, after the comment period ended, an error of fact was found. Referring to Mr. Robinowitz's concerns, he asked for a written response to Mr. Robinowitz's contention that the Home Depot site review was approved in part because it presumed the completion of the West Eugene Parkway by 2010. Councilor Taylor stated that she was interested in having a public hearing on the WOW Hall. She expressed alarm to see action on the March 7 agenda about the West 8th Avenue site. She did not feel action should be taken until the council had conducted a work session and a public hearing. She added that the West 8th Avenue business group had an interesting proposal that deserved some discussion. Councilor Solomon said the comments made by Jana Jackson were consistent with at least three phone calls she had received from constituents related to traffic concerns. She asked for a work session, noting that Ms. Jackson had addressed the issue of the good people of Eugene being taken advantage of by transient criminals who came to town and the criminal mischief makers. She stated the City needed to be clearer about its boundaries, asserting that the community did care about homeless people, as Ms. Jackson had clearly articulated. City Manager Taylor suggested that the task force currently studying solicitation, trespassing, panhandling, and homeless issues would be able to incorporate Councilor Solomon's concerns. He agreed to get back to Councilor Solomon with the task force timeline. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 3, 2005, State of the City Address - January 10, 2005 ,Work Session - January 10, 2005, City Council Meeting - January 24, 2005, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4824, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4816 (Arthur C. Carmichael, Jr. and Larry Von Klein) D. Adoption of Resolution 4825, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4815 (1375 Olive, LLC) Mayor Piercy reported that the City Council had approved all items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of B, Approval of Tentative Working Agenda, at the 5:30 p.m. City Council Work Session. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of Item B on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor reiterated that she had a problem with the March 7 future agenda showing action on HOME funding for the West 8th Avenue housing project, and opined there should be more discussion on what would happen at that site before taking action. Councilor Pap6 stated he had served on the HPB, and noted Councilor Solomon was currently serving on the HPB. He explained that West 8th Avenue proposal was not new, noting that the HPB and Allocations Subcommittee had been working on the process for quite some time. He added an RFP designed last spring had solicited proposals for low-income housing that had been discussed "ad nauseum" at the committee and HPB level. He recommended that the project be kept on schedule and that the council respect the council established committee process. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item B passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy announced that during the work session, the City Council had moved Item 6, Ratification of Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Actions of January 4, January 25, and February 1, 2005, to the top of the agenda. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to ratify the actions of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) as set forth in the minutes of the committee's January 4, January 25, and February 1, 2005, meetings. Councilor Pap6 affirmed the council practice of bringing individual items to the council when a split vote occurred on the CCIGR. He stated there were four items, action on House Bill 2164, House Bill 2165, House Bill 2350, and Senate Bill 71, on which there were split votes. He said he would support the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session majority position on House Bill 2164, and asked to have the remaining items removed from tonight's action and brought back to the council on February 28, 2005. Councilor Kelly recalled that the practice for split votes in the past was that they were brought to the council as highlighted items in the Agenda Items Summary, but were not voted upon separately unless there was a motion to pull them. Mayor Piercy noted no support for Councilor Pap6's request. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motorized Transportation Devices and Most Assisted Scooter Sales; Amending Sections 4.990, 5.010, and 5.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding New Sections 4.979 and 5.160 to that Code City Manager Taylor introduced Sergeant Derel Schulz from the Eugene Police Department (EPD), and asked him to briefly describe the proposed motorized transportation and assisted scooter sales ordinance. Sgt. Schulz identified himself as the supervisor for the traffic enforcement unit of the EPD. He reviewed the timeline and process for development of the ordinance and noted that a motorized transportation device (MTD) was exempt from the provision if it was used as a mobility aid by a person with mobility impairment, used by a person with express permission from the City, or used by a City employee or agent in the course of City business. Sgt. Schulz said there are numerous State laws that govern the devices, and explained that the proposed ordinance would address problems that are unique to Eugene: Ban motorized transportation devices from all City-owned off-street paths. · Prohibit use of motorized transportation devices in a manner that disturbed the peace. · Require merchants to make certain disclosures related to the sale of motor-assisted scooters. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Sue Wolling, 85219 South Willamette Street, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance, because it reflected the public's comments on the issue last fall. She said most people had testified in support of significant restrictions on the use of motorized scooters on the bicycle paths, noting people objected to the noise, speed, fumes, and recognized that the police had no ability to enforce a nuance-complicated ordinance. She said although people had a difficult time identifying exactly what they objected to about the scooters, the scooters were motorized vehicles invading a space that had always been a refuge from motorized traffic, a haven of people-powered transport. She asserted that the bicycle paths were special places, and one of the best things about living in Eugene. Kurt Jensen, 1672 Happy Lane, speaking in support of the proposed ordinance, affirmed Ms. Wolling's comments. He said the bicycle paths were designed and built for non-motorized use that provided a wonderful outdoor experience to thousands of people every week that would be degraded if MTDs were allowed. He added that the paths provided opportunity for a wide range of activities that had a common MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session factor, i.e., they were undertaken without a motor or engine. He noted that the ordinance was clearly written and enforceable, and it codified the historical use of the bicycle paths. Any suggestion that the City could or should change the ordinance to allow some MTDs but not others and to cite MTDs based on behavior was unrealistic. He stated that by passing the ordinance, the visions and efforts of many citizens who had been involved in the design and construction of the paths was confirmed, that the paths were a place to walk, ride bicycle, skate, amble and to do so under one's own power, thereby improving the health of the users of the paths and the cormnunity. Mr. Jensen proposed modifying paragraph E so that users of MTDs had the same access to City streets, the same rights and responsibilities, as all cyclists had on the roads. He urged the council to approve the proposed ordinance and asked the council to keep the bicycle paths safe and quiet, and MTD free. Eldon Andrews, 187 Deadmond Ferry Road, Springfield, proposed placing a speed limit on the bicycle trails and slowing down the bicycles as well as other users. He supported the idea of educating the public. He said pocket bikes were made with lots of power to excite the owner, capable of exceeding 24 miles per hour (MPH). He added they were not licensable as mopeds. He stated that all of the bike bridges would not be accessible to cross the river, resulting in scooter users having to take lengthy detour routes to get to town, creating a hardship. David Sonnichsen, 2435 Skyline Boulevard, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance as a well crafted motion. In addition to the comments from Sue Wolling and Kurt Jensen, Mr. Sonnichsen added that in the notifications that sellers provided to buyers, there should be a range of the potential fines identified for illegally operating a scooter on a City path where the devices were prohibited. He said in the past, drivers parked illegally in handicapped parking spaces until the fines were increased to make the illegal parking financially prohibitive. He added there needed to be a significant fine for people operating motorized scooters on City paths that deterred illegal use. He noted the police already had enough on their plates and there was a need for strong enforcement. Mr. Sonnichsen opposed allowing the scooters on the bridges over the Willamette River, especially near Autzen Stadium. He added that the scooters were toys rather than an alternative to riding a bike, driving a car or walking. Alternative modes were not applicable here because the manufacturers' instructions stated scooters should only be ridden on dry pavement, and there were a lot of days in Eugene when the pavement was not dry. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked for questions from councilors. Councilor Poling asked where the SegWay fit into the ordinance, as an electric, personal, assisted, motorized device. Sgt. Schulz replied that there were specific State statutes that governed those devices as a different classification from a motor-assisted scooter. In response to Councilor Poling, Sgt. Schulz said he understood that according to State statute, the SegWay would be allowed on bicycle paths. Councilor Poling had received an email from a constituent expressing concern that he could not cross the Willamette River over Coburg Road, noting that he was subject to citation if he used the sidewalk. If the proposed ordinance passed, the constituent would not be able to cross the river at all. Sgt. Schulz replied that the City Traffic Engineer, Tom Larsen and other City staff were in agreement that given the unique nature of the devices, having them share the roadway with cars was not a safe alternative. Sgt. Schulz added that having the devices share the space with pedestrians and human powered devices was equally unsafe. He concluded the only alternative was for the riders to dismount, turn the power off and walk the devices across the bridges. He said when the devices were viewed as a commuter vehicle, there were difficulties in that there were only specific roadways and areas where the devices could to be operated, resulting in difficulty for operators to map out a course where the devices could be legally operated on MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session roadways with a speed limit of 25 MPH or less, or roadways that had specific bike lanes. The majority of local roadways did not have dedicated bike lanes, citing Franklin Boulevard, and 6th and 7th avenues as examples. Councilor Ortiz said she had questions similar to those of Councilor Poling, noting in her ward, people used the devices for transportation. She said the proposed ordinance would be problematic for people who worked at Valley River Center who would have to walk the devices across the bridge. Sgt. Schulz suggested it may be possible to commute to a Park and Ride location, or a bus stop, and then use Lane Transit District (LTD) services. He added that sharing pedestrian areas or automobile areas presented safety issues, noting that the multi-use paths had traditionally been viewed as a sanctuary by those who wished to get around under their own power. Councilor Kelly said he would like an answer to the following questions before the council considered adoption of the ordinance. He noted there were two sets of conditions in the ordinance, the notification on sale that identified specific requirements for motorized scooters, and the broader prohibition on off-street bike paths. The prohibitions on what could be done with motorized assisted scooters came right out of State law, which defined motor-assisted scooters in a different place than it defined electric-assisted bicycles. He expressed concern that under State law, an electric-assisted bicycle could be ridden on a 35 MPH street with no bike lane. His constituent wanted assurance that the first section of the ordinance was not intended to prohibit in Eugene only an electric-assisted bike being ridden on a 35 MPH street with no bike lane. Councilor Kelly commented that the ordinance had a clause that the prohibition on off-street paths would not apply to mobility-impaired individuals who needed a motorized device. He emphasized that it was important the mobility impairment be broadly defined to include situations where a medical condition would prohibit an individual from driving an automobile, but could safely use a scooter that did not go faster than 15 MPH. He expressed pleasure that the Human Rights Commission Accessibility Committee had been consulted and would be involved in drafting the administrative rules. He hoped there would be outreach that would publicize opportunities for people to provide input on the mobility impairment issue to the Accessibility Committee. Councilor Kelly said it was not his reading that SegWays would be allowed on the bicycle paths, and asked Sgt. Schulz to verify the State statute. Councilor Pap6 concurred with Councilor Kelly on mobility impairment issues. He suggested that the City Attorney review the language in 4.979(1)(e) to allow operation of the devices on private property. Councilor Pap6 reported that former Councilor Nancy Nathanson had previously noted that people valued many things in the community, and no one valued the multi-use paths more than he did. He also wanted to encourage the use of alternate forms of transportation, especially getting people out of their automobiles, and expressed concern, as had Councilor Poling and Councilor Ortiz, about running all motorized vehicles off of alternate ways to get through the community. Councilor Kelly continued Councilor Pap6's comments, noting the conundrum of not wanting to put a 15 MPH scooter in the middle of the Ferry Street Bridge, while at the same time not wanting to put it on the sidewalk. He said it was important to take a specific look at critical missing bike lanes on major streets such as Martin Luther King Boulevard. He also suggested that if the off-street paths were removed, a focused look at adding priority bike lanes should be examined. He asked staff to provide him with a stand- alone motion that was not part of the ordinance to direct staff to scope out priority bike lane stripping. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Mayor Piercy commented on the quality of the hearing that brought forth important information that would enable the council to make good decisions about the issue. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Public Contracting; Adding Sections 2.1400, 2.1405, 2.1410, 2.1415, 2.1420, 2.1425, 2.1430, 2.1435, 2.1440, 2.1445, and 2.1450 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Sections 2.1200, 2.1205, 2.1210, 2.1215, 2.1220, 2.1225, 2.1230, 2.1235, 2.1240, 2.1245, 2.1250, and 2.1255 of that Code; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Taylor introduced Tamara Bronson from the Central Services Department, and asked her to briefly describe the proposed Public Contracting ordinance. Ms. Bronson advised councilors that page 13, Section 2.1445 of the proposed ordinance contained a scrivener's error. The first line of Section 2.1445 should read: "Public Contracts - Electronic Advertisement of Contracts." She said the correction would be included when the ordinance was returned to the council for action. Ms. Bronson explained that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to bring the City of Eugene into compliance with the new State of Oregon Public Contracting Code (OPCC). She said the 2003 State Legislature enacted a complete rewrite of the OPCC that was scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2005, at the request of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. The new code directed the Department of Justice to write new model rules that were completed and made available to public agencies several months ago. She stated that most of the previous code was written in 1975 and had been amended at every legislative session since that time. Ms. Bronson said that the new OPCC repealed all local public contracting codes and rules, and required local agencies to adopt new codes and rules that were in compliance with the new OPCC. The ordinance before the council would make the City compliant with laws that would go into effect March 1, 2005. She noted that most of the changes were housekeeping in nature and reestablished exemptions that were previously in effect. Mayor Piercy noted that no one had signed up to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Piercy asked for questions or comments from councilors. Councilor Pap6 declared a potential conflict of interest regarding ownership of a company that contracted with the City. Councilor Kelly expressed frustration that the council was up against a March 1 deadline where the City's contracting law expired if nothing was passed, considering the law had been signed by the Governor 16 months ago. He asked why the council did not get the new ordinance a long time ago. City Manager Taylor replied that the Department of Justice (DO J) did not produce the outlines for local governments until recently, putting a legislative mandate on the City that repealed all of the local laws with a date to enact new laws consistent with the revisions during the last legislative session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Carol Pomes, Purchasing Manager, added that the DOJ purposefully allowed a long time because the undertaking was a major rewrite. She noted that all public agencies were facing the same deadline challenge. Councilor Kelly asked if there were places where the City could deviate from the State code, or if the proposed ordinance closely followed the State code. Ms. Pomes replied the language in the ordinance was what was required by State law. In addition to the State code, new public contracting rules and procedures that comprised the details of public contracting were also being drafted. Councilor Kelly asked what the practical effect on staff and council's involvement was compared to the old code. Ms. Pomes responded that the new code would provide the following: updated procurement terminology and procurement methods; greater ability to do alternative contracting methods; reorganization of the code to facilitate determination of which portions of the code applied to goods and services, and definition of which portions of the code applied to public contracting and public improvement contracting. Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance reflected only the State mandates and nothing else, noting that the findings on page 121, Exhibit A, included a list of provisions that did not require findings. She assumed that the remainder of the provisions for which there were findings above and beyond statutory requirements. Ms. Pomes confirmed Councilor Bettman's observation, adding that State statute required local governments to enact their own exemptions, while others reestablished previous exemptions that had been repealed by the legislation. Councilor Bettman asked, out of the nine pages of findings, how much was above and beyond the existing code that would expire on March 1, and what exceeded the State requirements as new code language. Ms. Pomes replied that the new code included an exemption for privately engineered public improvements (PEPIS), allowing the City to participate as an exemption in those projects. She said the second exemption provided for use of alternative contracting methods for some public improvement projects such as the contractor/architect/design/built projects. Councilor Bettman asked for a memo from the City Manager with the new provisions and a little more of an explanation on the findings. She added that she wanted to know what the checks and balances were, and how the new language related to privatization of services currently provided by the City. Referring to his earlier declaration of a potential conflict of interest, Councilor Pap6 asked for a ruling from the City Attorney. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated if Councilor Pap6 had a conflict, at most it was a potential conflict rather than an actual conflict of interest, and that Councilor Pap6 was free to participate in the discussion and vote on the ordinance. Referring to page 2 of the ordinance, Section 2.1415 (2)(b), Councilor Pap6 asked if alternative contracting methods would allow for a greater use of life cycle costing rather than straight low bid. Ms. Pomes replied that the City had had the ability and had used life cycle costing routinely, and would continue to do so under the new ordinance. The council took a break from 8:55 p.m. to 9:02 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Hazardous Substances User Fees; Amending Sections 3.692 and 3.694 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Section 3.695 to that Code City Manager Taylor introduced Glen Potter from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, and asked him to briefly describe the proposed ordinance. Mr. Potter said the proposed ordinance before the council would add certain types of businesses to those that currently report and/or pay fees to the Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program. He stated he was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the public hearing procedures, noting that each speaker would be limited to three minutes. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, represented the Lane County Home Builders Association. Ms. Cuellar thanked Steve Johnson and David Monk of the Toxics Board for their willingness to work with the association, adding they had been very considerate concerning the association's issues. She stated that under the proposed ordinance, businesses that included painting, wall hanging and roofing contractors would be added to the program. Her first concern was whether those contractors qualified under the definition of hazardous substance users. Section 3.692 defined a hazardous substance user as a business that operated a stationary facility, adding that the Charter defined a facility as all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items that were located and operated on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites. Ms. Cuellar asserted that contractors operated nothing at a single site, but rather worked at job sites in numerous locations, and questioned whether they met the definition of a hazardous substance user under the Charter. She stated there were a number of unanswered questions around the ordinance because the original Charter amendment dealt with manufacturers, whereas contractors used finished materials. The ordinance did not address whether it applied to job sites the contractor traveled to outside of the city. She noted no one she spoke with was willing to take a definitive stand on the question. Ms. Cuellar noted that the ordinance did not address whether a contractor had to include materials in the reporting calculations that were purchased in Eugene but used on job sites outside of Eugene. Did the contractor have to include materials in the reporting calculations that were purchased and provided by the homeowners and applied by the contractors? Jim Dotson, 1668 Willamette Street, identified himself as a photofinisher. He stated that there was a problem with how the Toxics Right-to-Know ordinance viewed photofinishing, adding that, in general, he was very supportive of the measure and the right of people to know what was going on around them. He said he had been advised by Mr. Potter that there was an exclusion in the proposed ordinance for one-hour photofinishers. He asserted that although they used different equipment than those used by traditional labs, the chemistry used in the processes was identical, and opined that excluding one-hour processers was a misstep. Lloyd Dolby, 3820 Monroe Street, identified himself as a small businessman who conducted contract research for pharmaceutical companies, and made two materials for biomedical devices. The business produced the ultraviolet light absorber used in the synthetic lens used in cataract lens replacement. He stated that his business presently reported to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session State Fire Marshal, the City of Eugene Fire Marshal, and the City of Eugene Wastewater Division, which he opined was enough regulation. He said the proposed ordinance struck him as a parasitic bureaucracy that was mounted on the backs of small business, adding that big businesses seemed to get tax breaks while small businesses got more regulation, which was unfair. He said if his company became subject to the new provisions, he would endeavor to move his business, which supported a $700,000 annual payroll out of Eugene. Vivian MacKenzie, 2806 Country Lane, worked at a small research company that would fall under the proposed amendment. She expressed concern that smaller companies that may have to report did not have the resources for security guards and security systems to ensure their chemicals were protected from illegal drug manufacturers. She stated that the City's website did not have the ability to track who logged on to and used the database that listed chemicals stored at various sites. Her second concern was the reporting burden on smaller businesses. Small businesses were already regulated by the State and City Fire Marshals, City of Eugene Wastewater Division, DEQ and EPA, and had neither the time nor resources for such an extensive reporting program that did nothing to regulate the amount of chemicals that went into the environment but was only a tracking system. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber opposed the ordinance primarily on the basis that, unlike previous ordinances that were necessary to implement the Toxics Right-to-Know Program in the Charter amendment, there was no aspect of the ordinance that was required by local or State law to implement the current program. He added that manufacturers would continue to file reports and the public would continue to have full access to those reports. Mr. Connolly asserted the ordinance had nothing to do with fee inequities, but everything to do with subjecting more businesses in Eugene to more costs and regulations, both of which would put them at a distinct competitive disadvantage with businesses located outside the city. He said that the costs and burdens to the small businesses were only magnified when a local news story said that fewer than ten requests had been received by the Eugene Public Library to see printed reports from the current program. Divided over the cumulative total of taxpayer general funds, business fees and costs of compliance, and City legal expenses incurred because the original charter amendment violated State law, the estimated cost of each request to view the reports at the library was over $100,000. He concluded by saying that the ordinance contradicted the letter and spirit of the categories of businesses that were required to report or pay fees in the Charter amendment. The ordinance would expand the program from large manufacturers as intended by the voters to now cover something entirely different, such as the YMCA fitness center. Mr. Connolly asked the council to follow the advice of the City Manager, noting that the proposed ordinance amendments allowed the problem of fee inequity to be much more complicated than needed. David Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said he was unsure of the objective of the proposed ordinance. In addition to financing a City Charter-mandated program in an equitable fashion, some viewed the proposed ordinance as an opportunity to expand the Toxics Right-to-Know Program in rather profound ways. If the objective was to finance the current program, all of the attention was on revenues and not on expenses. If the current budget for the Toxics Right-to-Know Program was $100,000, the bulk of the money in wages and benefits, perhaps the program itself should be reviewed. He said the number of companies required to report had remained largely unchanged since the inception of the program in 1996 and those 40 companies were familiar with the program reporting requirements. He stated that the Toxics Board audited approximately one-third of the reports annually. He said one way to achieve greater fee equity would be to lower fees paid by companies that were currently required to pay fees, thus maintaining the original intent of the Charter while reducing MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session the expense to those companies that had to comply. He asserted the savings could be realized by reducing staff support, reducing hours for the program, contracting the services out to the private sector, or directing the Toxics Board to limit its focus on the current program as a way to reduce staff support. By considering a 25 percent to 50 percent reduction in budgeted expenditures, the council would respect the integrity of the program and do a great service to small business that would be wrapped into the new ordinance. Conversely, he said if the objective was to expand the program and include small, locally owned businesses, then the council should do so in a fair, deliberative, and transparent manner. He noted there had been no City outreach to impacted businesses related to this proposed ordinance. Patty McConnell, 1060 West 1 st Avenue, owner of a collision repair facility that would be affected by the proposed ordinance, identified herself as a small business owner who was concerned about environmental issues. She expressed deep concern about expansion of an ordinance that would negatively impact her business and other small business that were already heavily regulated by DEQ, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), EPA, and the State Fire Marshal. As a collision and paint facility, the business was also regulated by the insurance industry, and was not able to charge for services randomly. She stated that her business was not a manufacturing firm, but rather a small service business that repaired vehicles owned by private citizens. She added the business purchased products from a local company, and owned expensive state-of-the-art equipment that dealt with hazardous waste used in the business. Additionally, this green business recycled all hazardous materials and took its reputation as a responsible and concerned business quite seriously. She said the burden of the proposed ordinance would compound the overhead in an already highly regulated business and would negatively impact the economy in Eugene. Ms. McConnell opined that Eugene was under scrutiny as being very unfriendly to business in general, and she could identify with the concerns of small businesses that wanted to stay in Eugene but found it difficult to deal with the additional requirements presented in proposed ordinance. She asserted that if the City Council had the interests of the small business community at heart, the ordinance was not the way to achieve positive change. She questioned the validity of expansion of a program that could not produce solid evidence that it had met the objectives established in 1996. Contrary to Mr. Johnson's remarks in the guest viewpoint in The Register-Guard, reporting would not be quite as easy as he had said nor would businesses like hers benefit as he suggested. Aside from the added fees, additional expenses would be incurred compiling the required reporting information. She stated the number of businesses required to report would increase the administrative burden on the City, requiring additional funding. Coupled with the number of additional employees required by the businesses to compile reports, a bureaucratic nightmare would result. Ms. McConnell expressed concern that Mayor Piercy had publicly expressed support for the proposed ordinance prior to hearing public testimony. Jeff Musgrove, 1152 Olive Street, said he and his brother owned Musgrove Family Mortuary and Crematorium that had operated in downtown Eugene since 1883, noting that the crematorium had been installed about 25 years ago. He expressed concern about expanding the Toxics Right-to-Know Program and was mystified how crematoriums got on the expansion list. He said the crematorium was a natural gas-filled kiln, adding that no other chemicals or substances were used in the cremation process. Mr. Musgrove asserted that the emissions from the stack were monitored and regulated by LRAPA, and that the EPA considered crematoriums a low priority for regulation. A diesel truck put out 42 times more carbon monoxide than a crematorium; an automobile discharged 100 times more hydrocarbons; and a residential fireplace emitted 182 times the amount of dioxin and furan. He expressed amazement that this business would be targeted for higher fees, since crematoriums provided an environmentally friendly method for final disposition. He was concerned that expansion of the Charter amendment would impact his relationship with his competition, saying his biggest competitor, while based in Eugene, had its MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session crematorium in Springfield. His business would be subjected to higher fees and reporting overhead. Mr. Musgrove also expressed concern about the fee structure based upon the number of employees for what amounted to a part-time business of cremation. He asserted that the unfairness and uncertainty was harmful to his business, and the increased overhead would be detrimental to his client families. He asked the council to refrain from enacting the ordinance; an action that would make him contemplate relocating his business. Jennifer Gleason, 3241 Donald Street, was a co-petitioner of the original Charter amendment and a right- to-know advocate on the Toxics Board. The original ordinance was designed to make it fair and manageable to the participating businesses, and to provide information for citizens about toxic chemicals in the community without having to pay to get the information. As the program had been implemented, businesses using large amounts of hazardous chemicals paid a reasonable fee to support the program. Businesses that opposed the program had filed a lawsuit against the City of Eugene that resulted in the court declaring that the fees to operate the program could not be based on the quantity of chemicals used by a facility, resulting in the current fee structure that required a business that did not use any hazardous substance to pay the same fee as a manufacturer that used large amounts of chemicals. Next, the businesses lobbied the State legislature to impose .a $2,000 cap on the fee paid by any facility. Currently, a small manufacturer paid more per employee than a large business, to cover program expenses. She asserted that the inequities were brought into the program by the regulated businesses. Rectifying inequities was very difficult thanks to the court decisions and actions taken by the legislature at the request of those businesses. She said the proposed ordinance attempted to remedy the inequities while reducing the per-full-time-employee (FTE) charge assessed against the businesses. Ms. Gleason said the original intent of the law was to gain information about toxics in the community, and stated that the proposed ordinance would help accomplish that goal. Noting that the proposal may not be the perfect solution, she suggested that the council look for ways to improve the draft ordinance and urged the council to listen to the speakers and come up with the perfect ordinance and support the Toxics Board's recommendation. Mary O'Brien, 1192 Lawrence Street, a co-author of the Toxics Right-to-Know charter amendment, and a six-year member of the Toxics Board, stated that the two proposals brought to the council attempted to minimize right-to-know funding inequities. The first was a small surcharge on commercial solid waste accounts, and the second was inclusion of additional hazardous substance users in the program. Both proposals provided a reduction but not elimination of the two fundamental inequities that industries created for themselves. Eugene's reporting businesses had completely blocked the ability of the Toxics Board to charge fees only to those companies that used 2,640 pounds of hazardous substances by claiming that Eugene's materials balance reporting program was the same as the State Fire Marshal's program. She asserted that the court's ruling was not appealed by the Toxics Board because it had been told that the court would defer to the State legislature. She added that the reporting businesses also blocked the board from charging only a small per-FTE charge to small businesses by going to the State legislature and asking for a cap that served only the interests of large businesses. She stressed that the only businesses that could end the inequities were those that had created those inequities by asking the State legislature to allow local jurisdictions to fund right-to-know programs equitably. She stated that the City Council should insist on the right of the community, both regulatory agencies and citizens, to be able to find out what toxics were released into the community and where. The City Council should send a clear message that its primary loyalty was to all citizens who were exposed against their will to toxic substances and who should be able to learn what and where those substances were. She concluded that if the council failed to act on either of the board's recommendations for minimizing the inequities created by the businesses, the business efforts to "choke" right-to-know would be rewarded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session Steve Johnson, 3818 Laurel Hill, illustrated his comments with two posters, entitled Eugene Toxics Right to Know: Reporting Businesses and Eugene Toxics Right to Know: Proposed New Businesses. He asserted that the only way to learn what and how much hazardous substance was being released was to refer to the reports available through the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. He stated that auto repair and filling stations released enormous amounts of benzene that had negative effects on children, as supported by a study by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Lisa Arkin, 1192 Lawrence Street, Eugene, the Executive Director of the Oregon Toxics Alliance, said the primary mission of the alliance was to inform the public and the media about toxic use issues. She said the public needed to be aware of toxics issues to better plan community health. She said that The Register-Guard recently erroneously implied that Eugene's Toxics Right-to-Know Program was the only one in the state because no other city was interested in establishing a similar program. She countered that opposition or lack of interest played no role in the singularity of Eugene's program, but that no other community was able to put such a program in place due to a 1999 law, House Bill 2431, supported by the Oregon Associated Industries, that discouraged any city or county from enacting right-to-know ordinances due to policy hurdles and economic barriers. She stated Portland recently adopted a toxics reduction strategy whereby the City and Multnomah County adopted policies that supported reduction and elimination of public and environmental exposures to toxic pollutants, and similar programs were in place in Lake Oswego, Seattle, Cleveland and San Francisco, as well as the states of New Jersey and Massachusetts. In response to The Register-Guard's contention that there was little public interest in the reports that could be accessed on the City's website, Ms. Arkin stated the Oregon Toxics Alliance received at least 20 to 30 calls annually, many from people considering moving to Eugene, seeking assistance in determining the risk of exposure to hazardous emissions in various parts of the city. Dianne Lobes, 4595 Fox Hollow Road, said that it was entirely fair that any company that used hazardous materials should contribute to the administrative costs of the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. What was unfair was for a company to claim it was unfair to pay a fee because their use was less than the threshold of 2,640 pounds annually. She stated there was evidence linking cumulative chronic chemical exposures to illness and chronic health conditions, asserting that the public had a right to know about all hazardous emissions in the community, regardless of whether or not they met the 2,640 pound threshold. The proposed ordinance would improve the City's Toxics Right-to-Know Program by bringing it into alignment with the voters' intention. Lynne Fessenden, 95348 Grimes Road, Junction City, a scientist who worked for a national non-profit on toxic issues, encouraged the council to adopt the proposed ordinance to address the inequities in the current funding of the hazardous substance reporting program. She said knowledge was essential, and that synthetic chemicals could be found in all sources of surface water in the United States and in our bodies. She said that public health officials, health care providers, public servants and policy makers, regulatory authorities, and citizens must understand that specific knowledge of the home, community, workplace and school environments was essential information for identifying health risks and implementing preventive strategies against disease and disability. She said Eugene's program illustrated a sophisticated comprehension of this new age of ubiquitous chemical contamination and was leading the way in addressing informed decision making with transparent, relevant and valuable information. She urged the council and the Toxics Board to create an equitable fee system. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, referred to a packet of information that he had prepared and encouraged councilors to read the information. As one of the three right-to-know advocates and the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session current chair of the Toxics Board, he offered a revised proposal to the proposed ordinance and asked the council to affirm tonight the unanimous recommendation from the board to include other hazardous substance users. He said the revised language deleted painting, roofing, wall covering contractors, and crematoriums from the proposed ordinance. He also asked that the council recognize the limitations of the board to address the fee inequities in the program and to encourage those in the business community who sued the City and lobbied for the legislative cap, to go back to the legislature this session and advocate for quantity-based fees and support the City's position for elimination of the fee cap. Mr. Monk took issue with a February 13, 2005, article in The Register-Guard by Mr. Russo that misrepresented the language that defined hazardous substance users. Evan Arkin, 29136 Gimpl Hill Road, an eighth grader from Spencer Butte Middle School, said that youth breathe in more air than adults and he wanted to know what he was breathing in. He asked how youth could participate in the process. He encouraged the council to consider the youth of the community and asserted he spoke for the youth of the community. He wanted to know how he could take part in the future of the community and how he could participate in learning about the environment, how to control it and how to make it safe. He understood that some businesses may consider it unfair to pay fees, but compared to the overall health of the community, the ordinance would help people know what was going into the air. He encouraged the council to look through the packets, alarming facts, and alarming statistics to realize that youth and adults need to know what was going into the air. Planet Glassberg, 1154-½ Hodson Lane, said that several women friends had died of cancer in a five- year period. She asked what it was going to take to prevent any more harm to Eugene residents. She wanted to know what substances industries, corporations, and business were using that would cause harm, and why they could not use alternatives that would not harm the environment or individuals. She asserted that the environment and people must come before profits. All corporations, businesses, and industries needed to be accountable and honest. It was time for the City to adopt and implement the precautionary principle as San Francisco and other cities had. Ruth Duemler, 1745 Fircrest Drive, said there was a need for a fair way to pay for the program. She asserted that everyone should work together to accomplish that goal. She displayed a chart that illustrated the difference between what was reported to the City compared to what was reported to the State and federal governments, noting higher figures were reported to the City. She encouraged the council to approve the ordinance. Stephen Kujawa, 29495 Airport Road, ran a small, clean manufacturing business that employed six employees who supported families in Eugene. He said that the business used small amounts of chemicals that were already reported to the EPA, the Fire Marshal, and other regulatory authorities. He said the business could expand to ten employees within the next year, at which time the cost of doing business in Eugene would go up. He stated the proposed ordinance was inequitable in that it did not proportionally distribute the costs to users. He asserted that the proposal punished small, growing companies that provided family-wage jobs. He found it ludicrous that small companies using very little of the substances were charged proportionately huge fees compared to larger companies that used 99 percent of the substances. He asked if the City wanted small companies to spend time and money on redundant paperwork or on employee health insurance, or perhaps on expanding their businesses resulting in more family-wage jobs. He said if the ordinance could not be enforced equitably, the job should be left to other regulatory agencies, and perhaps expanding the scope so it was more available. He said if the increasing costs were passed on to small businesses, soon everyone would be working at Wal-Mart. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 16 Regular Session Tim Itiggins, 1796 Willamette Street, said his petroleum business was currently regulated by the EPA, DEQ, the State Fire Marshal, and the Department of Agriculture. He said operators had to be licensed and certified by the State prior to being able to operate underground storage tanks. He said the new regulations were redundant. He stated that the proposed ordinance would have no effect on reducing emissions in the petroleum industry, noting that implementing Stage 1 and Stage 2 recovery efforts were the only ways to reduce emissions. Mr. Higgins said he recently spent about $450,000 upgrading his company's facility, with no financial assistance from the oil companies, and said there was no money left. When he was growing up, there were over 200 gas stations in Eugene and Springfield, and today there were 28 to 30. Within five years, he said only 15 or 20 stations operated by the big conglomerates would remain, and petroleum distribution in Eugene would be controlled by four or five people. He asserted that there was nothing the City could do that would compare to what the DEQ would put his company through during an upcoming six-hour inspection. He said the council was in over its head, and did not have a clue about the environmental regulations and equipment at a simple site. His 86-year-old father had breathed gasoline fumes his entire life and had no side effects, and his children had spent considerable time at the gas station with no ill effects. He did not know of anyone personally who had a side effect from petroleum fumes. He acknowledged that some people had health problems, but a small, noisy minority supported the ordinance. He concluded that most people do not care about the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. Mark Robinowitz, 28549 Sutherlin Lane, said he knew many people who had cancer and other health problems from the sorts of substances covered by the Toxics Right to Know ordinance. He asserted that the real issue was prevention. He noted that the toxic plume under the railroad was caused by a chlorinated solvent when a non-toxic alternative could have been used. Mr. Robinowitz said an article about green building technologies and wafer board made without formaldehyde appeared in a recent edition of Home Power Magazine published in Ashland. He noted that formaldehyde was the number one toxin in the air in Lane County, and that there were nontoxic alternatives. He asserted that medical costs resulting to toxic exposures were shifted to the public. He expressed concern about toxic substances transported via rail. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the meeting be extended to 10:20 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mara Wile, 3470 High Street, supported the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. She said that exposure to chemicals could lead to serious health issues. She stated that had that fact been known in the past, her River Road area home would not be sitting next to a toxic plume. She said if businesses were bringing toxic chemicals into the community, the community was entitled to the details. She did not see the much- publicized commotion that Eugene was not friendly to businesses. Her research for a new office location for her company in Santa Fe, Durango, Berkeley, and Boise demonstrated that those areas had more taxes, more forms, more licensing, and more requirements than did Eugene. She said chemicals had benefits but there should be correlating costs, asserting that the cost of the program was minimal, and the community deserved the right to know. She objected to The Register-Guard's contention that the website was used very little, when she found the website to be very helpful. Ethan McCutchen, 2984 Mill Street, the Director of Grass Commons, a Eugene-based, non-profit organization, said the obligation of a business to publish its effect on its social and natural environs should transcend the usual arm wrestling between free market capitalism and government regulation. He stated MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 17 Regular Session that there was a common need for information regardless of whether one relied on policy or market forces to build a strong, healthy society. Openly shared information was written explicitly into the assumptions of capitalist theory in nearly every text on the subject beginning with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. He said business communities had traditionally been anti-capitalist in this regard, using the rhetoric of market forces to dress up tactics that took information and power away from consumers, and therefore away from market forces. He said measuring and revealing hazardous substance usage came before any debate about toxics problems. Win Denham, 1995 West Seventh Avenue, was a small employer with a business in Eugene that had gotten smaller. He said one of the reasons small businesses got smaller was due to expense that they could not control. He expressed disgust that government regulation committees such as the Toxics Board had to be funded. He explained that he could not develop his business's budget in the same manner as public agencies because he did not use the money of others. He said he and his contemporaries were being forced to use their money to support a program that they could not control, asserting the ordinance was all about the money. His business had one half of the family-wage jobs it had five years ago, and programs such as the Toxics Right-to-Know Program were designed to move his customers to other locations. He said burdening small businesses with the cost of the program was not the way to go. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris, said she was a major contributor to the Toxics Right-to-Know movement, and supported the changes in the Toxics Right-to-Know law, saying that painters and dry cleaners needed to be added. She found comfort in knowing that businesses must disclose their discharges, surmising this prevented the most toxic emitters from choosing to locate in Eugene, which was a good thing. She stated that the program in Eugene was the best in the United States. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and thanked those who testified. She expressed appreciation on behalf of the City Council for the comments that were made. The meeting adjoumed at 10:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:12OO51central services departmentlcity manager's officelcity councillccOSO214m2.doc MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 18 Regular Session ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 16, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: David Kelly. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Kelly had requested no action be taken on the enterprise zone at the present meeting as he was unable to attend due to illness. Thus, action on the first item had been rescheduled for March 7. A. WORK SESSION: Economic Development Committee Recommendation on an enterprise zone Mayor Picrcy stated that the day's work session would cover two topics related to the City's sustainability goals. She looked at sustainability in terms of economic growth and how the City could meet the goals of environmental regeneration, social equity, and profitability so that thc City could protect its natural and human capital while supporting prosperity. She said enterprise zones were tools available to the City to target economic incentives and achieve the City's sustainability goals. She hoped the council would take this opportunity to undertake that targeting. City Manager Dennis Taylor said staff was before council at its direction to bring back an application for an enterprise zone prior to its submission to the State. He asked Denny Braud of thc Planning and Development Department (PDD) to speak about thc application. Mr. Braud recapped the direction from the City Council to pursue an application for an enterprise zone, given in October 2004, based upon the recommendation from the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. He reviewed thc committee's recommendations as outlined in the agenda item summary (AIS). He noted that there was competition for enterprise zones because of the State cap. He said thc application materials were substantially complete, but it was up to the City Council as to when it should be submitted. He added that local criteria did not fall under the jurisdiction of the State and did not need to be included in thc application, though it should be in place prior to the designation of the enterprise zone on July 1. He conveyed staff's agreement with the recommendation of thc committee to move forward with the application. Ms. Taylor averred that until thc State Legislature made changes regarding what qualifications the local jurisdiction could impose, it should not be considered. She said she would feel differently if it was limited to brownficld and redevelopment, to thc expansion of small local businesses only, or to an unlimited MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 2005 Page 1 Work Session geographic area. She was concerned with the mention of marketing to solicit people to come to the city of Eugene. She quoted Betty Niven who said, "If anyone is smart enough to find Eugene, I wouldn't lock them out but I wouldn't go looking for them and beg them to come." She felt most citizens did not want growth for the sake of growth. She recommended everyone read Better Not Bigger by Eben Fodor, which presented research on what happened in a community when a large, new employer was brought to the area. She said if the City was soliciting businesses that did not pay a living wage it was only adding to the social problems of the community. She felt the City was already experiencing problems with inadequate policing and school crowding because of growth. She preferred supporting a way to help local businesses grow in a gradual way. She commented that, like HMT, a company could come into Eugene with a tax break and leave before it was required to pay any taxes, although she acknowledged that HMT was being required to meet its tax liability. Ms. Bettman remarked that much had changed since 1986. She thought the City was utilizing the "same old tool" in a changed environment. She supported a "very surgically targeted" enterprise zone. She only wanted to attract jobs that provided living wages and benefits. She quoted Ron Davis who said "Tax incentives pale when compared to the education and skill level of the work force." She wanted the City to seek a work force with a high level of technical acumen and skill. She noted that Bruce Blonnigan had called an enterprise zone a "race to the bottom." She reiterated that the City should focus its efforts on firms with high taxable values that would attract the best workforce. Ms. Ortiz said her biggest concern was that the proposed enterprise zone was in the middle of her ward. She was for supporting local businesses with family wage jobs, but did not think it prudent to allow another huge heavy industrial business in the Trainsong Neighborhood. She comtnented that a lot of pollution there had yet to be addressed. She added that no one really knew at this point what the railroad was going to do with its property. Regarding greenfield development, Ms. Ortiz asked if the environmental impact to the land and what the current uses of it were had been researched. Additionally, she was puzzled that crime statistics were included in the AIS. Mr. Pryor said the quality of life in Eugene was directly linked to the economic engine that made it work. He averred that businesses needed to be located in the city with mechanisms that were reasonable and he did not perceive the enterprise zone to be an unreasonable tool. He was concerned that Eugene would not be able to find an equilibrium at which it could support itself. He thought enterprise zones were a good idea. He noted that Hynix Corporation paid a good wage and now employed 1,000 people. Ms. Solomon commented that the enterprise zone was not the only tool to work with but it was one tool that had been successful in the past. She pointed out that more small businesses than large ones had utilized the enterprise zone incentives and were continuing to grow as a result of the investments that the enterprise zone had allowed them to make. She called the enterprise zone a very powerful way to foster small businesses. Mr. Poling also underscored the help that small businesses had received from the enterprise zone. Regarding the map on Attachment B that eliminated the greenfield areas, he averred they were areas that were already included in previous enterprise zones. He felt that to keep the area attractive and competi- tive, those areas should be kept in the enterprise zone. He noted that Hynix Corporation and Lanz Cabinets would be grandfathered in, adding that Hynix had been "more than a good corporate citizen." MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 2005 Page 2 Work Session He said Junction City had an enterprise zone and would take advantage of the economic incentives to foster j ob growth. He predicted this would result in Eugene residents commuting to Junction City which would run against State goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Mr. Pap~ appreciated Mr. Pryor's analogies. He was in favor of the enterprise zone and did not oppose inclusion of language regarding the caliber of workforce and wages that the City sought. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Braud stated that once the zone was in place, the City Council could change the boundary and adopt new criteria. Mr. Papd asked what of the 5,900 acres proposed for the zone was available for development. Mr. Braud replied that staff had embarked on the initial stage of a buildable land inventory. Roughly 1,700 acres had been identified as vacant land, of which 786 acres was available. He underscored that all of the data was not yet available to staff. He said he would bring more information to the next meeting. Mr. Pap~ wished to stress that 80 percent of the business expansion that had occurred under the enterprise zone had been undertaken by local small businesses. Mayor Piercy wished for clarification on how community standards would be defined. Mr. Braud explained that in the past the City Council had passed a resolution outlining its criteria. He recommended the criteria be focused on wages, benefits, job training, and other employment issues. He said the State statutes dictate which types of companies receive the tax exemption and the City could not change that. Mayor Piercy asked staff to take a look at the community standards and be sure that they lined up with what was being set forth. Mr. Braud responded that Attachment C did so. Mayor Piercy asked staff to put its interpretation of the standards together with what the council was proposing and then invite people to weigh in so that the council could make informed decisions. Ms. Taylor asked why the crime rates were referenced. Ms. Taylor acknowledged that small businesses had benefited. However, she averred that businesses in areas that did not have the incentives provided by the enterprise zone did not understand why some businesses were given the breaks based on geographical location. Ms. Taylor noted that some of the councilors had attended the Sustainable Business Conference. She thought they had learned good things and should build upon them. She said building on what the City already had was the way to proceed, such as the natural foods industry and the arts. Ms. Bettman stated that after the last enterprise zone, a committee had been formed which recommended a per-job cap. She supported instituting such a cap. She agreed that many small businesses had participated but wished to point out that the small businesses had received a small percentage of the actual dollars. Ms. Bettman averred that the enterprise zone was really a tool for increasing manufacturing businesses. She referenced comments made by the committee that supported economic development through high- paying knowledge-based jobs and the use of education and medical research as industries. She also thought the City should develop agricultural industries as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Solomon noted that part of the greenfields were out at the airport. She opined it did not make sense, given the level of investment the City had made in the airport, to limit development around it. She observed that many airports were surrounded by industrial zones and those zones were desirable areas to develop in because of the proximity to air transportation. Regarding brownfield redevelopment, she pointed out that such areas were more expensive build upon and this hindered smaller businesses. Ms. Solomon said the question for her was not why the City should have an enterprise zone, but why not. Mr. Poling asserted that the City needed to make the application process as simple as possible following State guidelines. He urged the council to do it now so that if it was not granted in this year, the City would be in the queue and would be prepared so that the application could be resubmitted. Regarding the portion of money small businesses received, Mr. Poling stressed that smaller businesses may have received less of the overall amount of money in incentives, but they also contributed less in tax revenue. Mr. Pap6 ventured that $10,000 or $20,000 to a smaller company might mean more in the long run than $500,000 in incentives to a larger company. Ms. Bettman wished to point out that excluding greenfields from the zone did not preclude development. Rather, she said, it only precluded the potential development from receiving incentives. She asserted that when the City provided an incentive, it was foregone revenue for City services and schools. She thought it important to use it as a tool, but advised that it be leveraged in a way that provided the maximum public benefit with it. Mr. Poling referred to page 164 of the AIS and underscored that the City spent no money on private development projects. The enterprise zone only provided a tax exemption that would eventually provide tax revenues on new development. He wished to emphasize that without the development, one had an empty lot that generated tax revenue at a much lower rate. Ms. Solomon added that the exemption was only given to the portion of the business that was expanding. Mr. Braud affirmed that nothing that was on the tax rolls came off. Ms. Bettman said the boundaries in the motion she planned to place on the table would not have excluded the majority of the businesses that benefited from the tax breaks. Responding to concerns regarding the inclusion of crime statistics, Mr. Braud explained that the State required hardship criteria as part of the application. He said while crime was a hardship, it was not necessary to include that set of the statistics in the application. Regarding concerns about the focus on manufacturing jobs, Mr. Braud stated that it was one of the higher paying sectors of employment. He underscored that one of the reasons the community had a wage issue was that it had lost some of its manufacturing jobs. City Manager Taylor asked the council to direct any concerns and questions not yet articulated to staff as soon as possible because of the application deadline. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 2005 Page 4 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Braud said the Oregon Economic Community Development Director had ultimate approval authority for the zone. He noted he had participated in the past on a panel of communities that reviewed such applications and made recommendations for approval to the director. B. WORK SESSION: Sustainability Practices at the City of Eugene Mayor Piercy said thc City had much to recognize and applaud regarding its sustainability efforts. She hoped thc City Council would listen and give direction to the City staff to continue its work and to set sustainability goals for each department and across departments. City Manager Taylor called sustainability an area that thc City could build on what was already in place. He said since the late 1990s sustainability had been a goal of thc City and though much had been accomplished, it still had a long way to go. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson conveyed his regret that Mr. Kelly was ill, given Mr. Kelly's interest in thc subject matter. He stated that Public Works Department (PWD) Director Kurt Corcy and PDD Director Tom Coylc sat on thc environmental policy team that oversaw the City's activities on sustainabil- ity issues. Mr. Carlson reminded everyone that sustainability had three elements: environmental stewardship, social equity, and economic vitality. He thought, overall, that thc City made thc greatest effort around environmental stewardship issues. He encouraged thc council to think about the economic vitality and social equity portions of sustainability. Mr. Carlson reviewed Resolution No 4618 in thc Agenda Item Summary. He felt much of what thc City worked on in its planning centered on sustainability. He provided an overview of the information included in thc memorandum entitled Update on Sustainability Activities. Mr. Carlson highlighted thc City's Wetland Mitigation Bank, which enabled developers of properties to easily mitigate impacted wetlands and did it in a way that was better, as it resulted in a connected system of wetlands rather than protected, isolated half-acre plots. He stated that this was a key reason that the Public Works Department had been given thc Julian Award for sustainability. Mr. Carlson spoke about thc Business Development Fund loan program, which targeted money to small businesses working in the area of sustainability. He listed some of thc recipients, such as the Plaza Latina Market, Holy Cow Vegetarian Foods, Green Gear Cycling, Co-Motion Cycles, New Day Bakery and World Caf& Continuing, Mr. Carlson highlighted the efforts to educate the local community through a brochure entitled The City of Eugene and Sustainability and other pamphlets, as well as the work done with volunteers throughout the City organization in programs such as the Neighborwoods Program and the parks volunteers. He noted that, in the effort to think globally and act locally, the City was working with Bob Doppelt and one of his graduate classes on an inventory of greenhouse gases in Eugene, the ultimate result of which could be the development of a local climate-change plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 2005 Page 5 Work Session In closing, Mr. Carlson stated that the City of Eugene was on the leading edge of progressive building methods. He felt the City was setting an example and leading in the community. Mr. Poling asked if other governmental bodies were participating in a similar program. Mr. Carlson said the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was actively involved in some of the initiatives in the local comtnunity, though primarily focused on electric and water usage. He pointed out that Deborah Brewer, EWEB staff member, was present. He noted that a number of local government entities were involved in the clean diesel program. He said Eugene was likely involved in more sustainability oriented activities than most communities. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Carlson stated that the bio-diesel the City used was produced in the Midwest and brought to the area by tanker cars. He predicted that a bio-diesel production facility would open in Portland soon, given the level of demand in the region. He indicated that bio-diesel fuel was derived from using restaurant grease byproducts. Mr. Poling wondered if there was any long-term damage to the diesel engines. Fleet Manager Carlos Davis responded that it lowered emissions and cleaned the engine. He underscored that it also reduced dependency on foreign oil. Mr. Carlson noted that the vehicles went through oil filters quickly as the engines were cleaned up. Mr. Davis stated that bio-diesel fuel could be used in any engine that uses diesel fuel. Mr. Pryor was very impressed by the work being done. He felt it demonstrated that the City "got" the relationship between quality of life and quality of livelihood. He thought the degree to which the City could keep moving forward on this was desirable. He appreciated the Mayor reiterating the importance of sustainability in all areas. Mr. Pap6 concurred. He appreciated that the City was leading by example and not by regulation. He noted that the council had talked about pursuing policies on lead certifications. He asked if there would be a work session on that soon. Mr. Carlson indicated that time was reserved for this topic during the work session on April 27. Mr. Pap6 related that he had attended the Green Building Conference, held in Portland this last year, and was impressed with some of the progressive methods of construction that sought to minimize impacts. He listed some of the things that he had seen at the conference, including a non-water-using toilet. Mr. Carlson noted that waterless toilets were already slated to be installed in some City facilities. Mr. Pap6 noted that there were new buildings in process and asked if any were getting certified. Mr. Carlson said the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) standards were being used in design and construction but at this point the City was not applying for certification because of the cost. Mr. Pap6 expressed hope that, when the system became more streamlined and the cost was reduced, that the City would be a leader in green building projects. Mayor Piercy said City staff deserved laurels for all of the work that had been done but she did not want the City to rest on them. She hoped the City would consider this to be the first step in a discussion of not only how the City addressed sustainability but how the whole community could be engaged in both practices and products and carving out some new economic niches in the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 16, 2005 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 23, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Poling had requested no action be taken at the present meeting as he was unable to attend due to illness. A. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibited Smoking; and Amending Sections 6.225, 6.230, 6.240, and 6.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that this was a continuation of the public hearing that had been held at the previous City Council meeting. He asked Keli Osborn, Permit Review Manager for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to highlight the ordinance as proposed. Ms. Osbom conveyed the staff recommendation that a 25-foot no smoking buffer around City-owned buildings be declared. But, she said, the second item, which sought to incorporate the administrative order regarding outdoor smoking areas into the City Code, had been withdrawn from the proposal. She asked that the council provide direction to staff and possibly schedule a work session to discuss this issue further, which would provide time to further research existing outdoor smoking structures and determine how the City wanted to approach such facilities. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Ms. Osborn that, in the interim, the administrative rule would still govern outdoor smoking areas. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly reiterated his support for the 25-foot buffer. Regarding the issue of outdoor smoking areas, he recalled the discussion that had occurred when the council was crafting the original ordinance, which emphasized that such outdoor areas should only be built for bars and restaurants and only in the outdoors. He felt some of the examples the council looked at during the public hearing would not be judged as outdoor areas. He supported outdoor facilities when they were clearly outdoor areas, such as patios that were covered to protect patrons from the rain. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman was prepared to support the ordinance. She asked that the language in Section 6.230 referring to polling places be stricken, given that the citizens of Oregon now all vote by mail. She thought it might be appropriate to look into expanding the 25-foot buffer to include all publicly owned buildings when the ordinance was revisited to include language defining outdoor smoking areas. She underscored that the original intent of the issue was to protect people and foster workplace safety. She did not consider an outdoor smoking area to be an outdoor drinking area. She felt that once people were drinking in the outdoor area, service would be required and the intent of the ordinance was defeated. Speaking to the issue of the current administrative rule, Ms. Bettman asked if there was a way to stave off a plethora of permit applications for the development of outdoor smoking areas by bars and restaurants seeking to build prior to the potential imposition of stricter parameters. Ms. Taylor said the main reason for the ordinance was to protect people's health and she supported it. She agreed that it was unfair to employees to make them serve and clean up after patrons in outdoor smoking areas. She also thought it manifested unfair competition given that some establishments did not have the room to install an outdoor smoking area. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be possible, given that action would not be taken at the current work session, to vote on both the buffer and on standards for outdoor smoking areas when the ordinance was resched- uled for consideration. City Manager Taylor opined that it would be cleaner to get the 25-foot buffer adopted and return with new language to govern construction of outdoor smoking facilities. Ms. Osborn asked if Ms. Taylor meant that the council would be voting on standards for outdoor areas and, if so, whether she thought there should be another public hearing. Ms. Taylor indicated she did not think another public hearing was necessary because one had been held on the non-smoking ordinance in January. City Manager Taylor recommended that a public hearing be held because the people who could be affected by changes to outdoor smoking area standards had not been noticed prior to the last public meeting. Ms. Taylor asked if people with existing outdoor facilities would be grandfathered in. City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that the construction and land use might be grandfathered in, but he did not think the use of the space as a smoking area was grandfathered since this was a form of regulation for the public health. He said given the amount of State regulation in this area, there were some legal issues concerned with the changes the City Council might make. He recommended further legal research. Mr. Pap6 supported the ordinance as proposed. He realized that the council was trying to protect non- smokers and employees from second-hand smoke. While he did not have a concept that people would not be drinking in the outdoor areas, he had not considered that people might be serving drinks to patrons in them. Regarding the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) requirement that employees enter the areas in the case of emergencies, Mr. Pap6 asked how such emergencies were defined. Ms. Osborn replied that the OLCC did require visibility for those areas in which drinking occurred and that employees be able to go in MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 2 Work Session should an incident require them to. Examples of such incidents included deterring minors from drinking or interrupting an altercation between patrons. Regarding the administrative rule, Mr. Pap6 asked if the 25 percent requirement was for opaque walls or for the open air portion of a facility. Ms. Osborn replied that it referred to the open air portion. Mr. Pap6 indicated that he would support increasing that amount to perhaps 50 percent. Mr. Pap6 supported the 25-foot buffer but was uncertain how it would be enforced. Ms. Osborn said it would be enforceable for congregating smokers but she did not think it would be possible to regulate smokers as they were walking by a building; however, public information could help promote compliance. Ms. Solomon wanted to be certain that the City was not taking away the option of having smoking areas. She felt bars and restaurants should have the choice and the option to build a smoking room if that was what their patrons wanted. Ms. Ortiz wished to stress that she was not against smoking or that smokers were bad people. She felt that smoking was a "sad" addiction. She appreciated that the council was having a good conversation about what was desired in such a facility. She supported making them as airy as possible and not forcing employees to breathe second-hand smoke. Ms. Bettman commented that the City had allowed the proliferation of these sorts of outdoor facilities and could be stuck with the ones that were already built. She asked if there was a way to temporarily discontinue issuing permits for their construction. Mr. Lidz commented that in the land use context, the City was required to issue or deny permits based on standards that were in place at the time the application was submitted. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor recommended that the council come back after the break and finish addressing the item, at which time staff could present modifications to the administrative rule extrapolated from the council discussions on it. He did not think it would be prudent to issue a moratorium on permits, given that the action could take place relatively soon. Ms. Bettman said she was using up a lot of her time trying to define the issue and she had other comments to make. She felt she was not getting anywhere. She reiterated that the City may see a proliferation of permits. Ms. Bettman moved to discontinue issuing permits for outdoor smoking areas pending resolution of the issue. Mr. Kelly raised a point of order. He stated that a majority of the council would have to agree to override Mr. Poling's request not to take action. Ms. Bettman agreed to bring this item back. She asked staff to come back with language for a moratorium on the permits at the meeting scheduled for February 28. She reiterated that the key to regulation for her was not only the amount of available air but also whether employees were forced to enter into the smoking areas to serve customers or clean up after them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Bettman's concern. He felt a lot of the smoking areas were rooms for all purposes and intents because of the way the administrative rule was written or because an establishment disre- garded the rule. He was not opposed to giving some latitude to smokers who go to a bar and want a truly outdoor area in which they could have drinks as well. He felt there would be enough air circulation that a server could occasionally enter an outdoor area to intervene in an altercation or other small emergencies. Ms. Taylor commented that even if it was truly outdoors, there was still some danger to the people who serve and the people who clean up. Ms. Osborn said it seemed that staff had clear direction to come back with some proposals. City Manager Taylor reiterated that it would be confined to bars and restaurants and would seek to protect employees from second-hand smoke. Mr. Lidz thought it possible to adopt a blanket 25-foot buffer for all publicly owned buildings, but he did not think the City could enforce it against the State or federal governments. He added that it was less clear regarding the County buildings. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Osborn said the City would pursue signage noting the 25- foot buffer. Mayor Piercy ascertained that no members of the council opposed the 25-foot buffer. The council indicated unanimous support. City Manager Taylor asked if the item could be included in the Consent Calendar, noting that Mr. Poling could pull it if he wished. The council indicated unanimous support for placement of the ordinance on the Consent Calendar. City Manager Taylor said he would ask Mr. Lidz and staff to look into what the council could do to keep from having a rush on permit applications for the construction of outdoor smoking areas. B. WORK SESSION: Downtown City Space Master Planning City Manager Taylor noted that Mike Penwell, Principal Facility Project Manager for the Facilities Division of the Central Services Department (CSD), was ill. As such, Facilities Division manager, Glen Svendsen, and Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson were standing in as staff for this item. Mr. Svendsen said this was the continuation of an item begun in November 2004. He recalled that there had been general consensus on the part of the council that a master planning process that would include public processes was needed for the downtown City spaces. He recalled that the council had been uncomfortable with the $750,000 price tag for the process and noted that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was also engaging in a similar process, slated to cost it $792,000. He related that staff had returned in January with a proposal that broke the process into stages, with the first stage slated to be a scoping element costing $75,000 that would involve both the council and the public in the development of the process. He provided a brief overview of the five options on how the master planning process should proceed. The fifth option was to take no action. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 4 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pryor said there had been no hired consultant for the Eugene Decisions process. He noted that Ed Weeks from the University of Oregon had been hired to help facilitate the process. Ms. Taylor opined that a consultant was not needed for the process. She wondered how much money it would take to have "really good neighborhood meetings." She wished to find out if the public wanted the City to build a new City Hall. She thought this would be a good point of discussion during the two-day goal-setting session. Mr. Carlson responded that it would cost $10,000 to do a mail-out to everyone in the neighborhood groups. Ms. Taylor commented that this would be cheaper than $75,000 or $30,000. Mr. Carlson replied that this was the cost for only the notice and there would still be costs for staff time and facilitators. Ms. Taylor underscored that her intention was to determine whether the public wished to embark on this planning process. Mr. Pap6 asked, for comparison purposes, what was involved in Option 3 and Option 4. Mr. Svendsen stated that the big difference in Option 4 lay in the degree of public involvement in the reiteration of the process and that there was more in-depth work with the council on the issues. Mr. Pap6 commented that the City Council and staff had done a great job of master planning over the past five years. He cited the new Fire Station as a fruit of this labor. His wanted to remedy the current situation, wherein some of the police were housed in the basement of the City Hall building. He did not care for the City Hall facility but did not think his preferences should be the deciding factor in whether the facility should be rebuilt. However, if a new police and City Hall facility needed to be built, he highly recommended raising public awareness as to why these projects were being considered. He noted that the City of Boise, Idaho, had partnered with the County to build one facility for public safety and thought this was one option. Ms. Bettman stated that the public would have the final say when they voted on the ballot measure. She thought the council needed to weigh the technical issues like the cost of maintenance versus the cost of rebuilding. She advocated for making this decision in a public process in order to maintain transparency in the City government. She felt the real problem with taking every decision out to the public was that it came back to the council and fell apart because the council did not have consensus. She said the question lay in how to create a process to "get to yes." She averred that the way to do that was to "make fundamen- tal decisions" before approaching the public. Ms. Bettman thought input from the public should include things like where a facility should be sited, but whether a master plan or an architectural diagram was needed would be a decision based upon whether the City was building a building or a campus. She recommended narrowing those options before the council went to the public. She wanted staff to bring a decision package to a City Council work session that included information on what the City was paying in rent and how much it would save by consolidating so that the council could take its first step. Ms. Solomon said it appeared that the City needed the master planning process and that it should include a parking garage to help link the City Hall part of downtown with the new courthouse. She thought it would address many of the needs the council had discussed. She wished to see what a quarter-block land swap MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 5 Work Session would look like. City Manager Taylor responded th at the answer to that question was contingent on the council's desired approach to the City Hall facility. He stressed that land assemblage was the most difficult part of downtown development. Before the City divided property that it currently owned, he recommended the council have a clear idea on how should proceed. Ms. Solomon acknowledged City Manager Taylor's :omments, but wanted to consider this opportunity to partner with private development. She did not want to pursue master planning if it precluded the exploration of the sub-projects. She reiterated her v fish to see what a quarter-block land swap would look like and also what a quarter-block police station wo' ~ld look like. Mr. Pryor remarked that the conversation should "by packaged and saved" for the point in the discussion when it was appropriate. He recalled that the item qn the agenda was a discussion on what kind of meeting to have to talk about what kind of meeting lo have. He underscored that the master planning process had not yet begun and all of the great input~bout that process should be saved for that discussion. He commented that he had never been involved in a process where a decision on the degree of public involvement was needed to determine how much public participation there should be in the master planning process. He thought it an interesting dilen xna. In looking at the options, Mr. Pryor thought Option 1, which left it to the City Manager to determine the public process, was not adequate. He thought Optic n 2, wherein $15,000 was spent on designing a public process subject to council approval might be "okay. He thought Option 3, which engaged some public input, might also work. What he was trying to dete~ nine, however, was what motion the council should vote on and what kind of process the City wanted tc pay for to decide what the public process should be. He did not feel the need to spend "a lot of money" t > decide how much public participation there should be in a public participation deciding process. He stJ essed that he did not dispute the need for public participation when the council arrived at the "big m :eting process." Mr. Kelly wished to address Ms. Solomon's comme ms. He thought both sub-projects presented opportunities. He said in a perfect world, such proj ~cts should wait for a master planning process, but given the time-sensitive nature of the projects he felt the council should have a discussion as soon as possible. He asked if he needed to petition for awc rk session. City Manager Taylor thought this discussion could happen and would likely be best c~ ~nducted in an executive session. He said the larger question at hand was what the council wished to do with regard to the City Hall facility. Mr. Kelly called it all relevant and intertwined and indicated he wou d request a work session. He thought the discussion might lead the council to consciously decide to limi its options regarding the City Hall complex. Regarding options, Mr. Kelly expressed a preferenc for Option 2, but said he was not interested in the option if it did not include some public involvemen~ He also agreed with Ms. Bettman regarding the necessity of the council making the fact-based decis ons such as whether to build or renovate. Ms. Bettman asked Council Coordinator Lynda Rose to provide to the council copies of an e-mail she sent out after the January meeting that laid out the fact-l: ased decisions she thought the council should make. She favored Option 2, stating that the City had the { :xpertise to focus the discussion on the discrete issues of whether or not to build and what the minimum tl~ reshold for services that should be included in the building. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor did not think the council needed to hire someone to tell it how to have a public process. She wanted more facts, adding that there had not been enough information on how much it would cost for a seismic retrofit for the existing building. Mr. Pap6 said the cost for renovation was known in 1999. He did not favor spending "one more dime" on the present facility. Mr. Pap6 recommended bringing the other councilors "up to speed" on the time-sensitive opportunity. He asked for head nods to determine if a work session on the "Shedd proposal" and trading a quarter of the lot should be scheduled. The councilors present indicated with a nod of the head that they wished to hold a work session on this item. City Manager Taylor surmised that individual meetings with a proposal that had not been vetted by other people would lead the council to have a meeting for disposal of half a block of property prior to deciding what it wanted to do with regard to City facilities. Mr. Kelly thought neighborhood meetings should be part of a master planning process but that he did not think such meetings were needed to determine the initial participation process. He noted the comment in the agenda item summary (AIS) on citizen juries and wished to clarify that his mention of a citizen jury was specific to the master planning process and not the design of the process. He said citizen juries were almost never delegated final authority and, in this case, he intended that a citizen body of this sort would provide a recommendation upon which the City Council would have the final say. Ms. Bettman called the deterioration of the City Hall facility a "discrete issue." She believed, within financial constraints, that the process should not be broadened by bringing in the County or the streets. She felt it was a facilities issue only, but it had turned into a large planning endeavor with a wide-open opportunity. In terms of visioning and planning, she felt location would be an important community discussion, but whether or not to build a new City Hall was a very discrete and technical issue. Mr. Carlson remarked that staff had been meeting about this issue for five years. He thought a lot of technical analysis would have to be conducted to make the determination on whether to rehabilitate the existing building and building onto it or whether to build a new building. He said until the amount of space that would be needed to meet the facility's needs were known, it would be difficult to determine just how much it would cost to rehabilitate or to rebuild. Ms. Taylor asserted that the building was deteriorating because the City had not maintained it. She did not think its alleged deterioration was a good excuse for replacing the building. Mr. Kelly asked why the council, ahead of a detailed master plan a few years earlier, had taken a vote in response to a staff recommendation that the City Hall would not receive any new major maintenance at that time if, as Mr. Carlson said, much more analysis was needed. He asked if the assistant city manager was trying to articulate major goals for the project. Mr. Carlson replied that staff needed to know if the project was going to be a police building and if it would consolidate other functions. Mr. Kelly thought this would complicate Ms. Bettman's goal to have clear, fact-based decisions prior to taking it to the public. He said there was material introduced from a seismic analysis of the building in a MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 7 Work Session council session earlier in the year. He suggested those sorts of larger questions should inform the discussion on whether to build new or renovate. Mr. Pap6 stated that the City had certain functions and it was important to decide how the City wanted to manage and house these different functions of the City into the future. He felt the council and City were at a larger junction than just the question of what to do with City Hall. Ms. Bettman reiterated the issues she thought should be decided prior to moving forward, such as whether or not to have the Police Department contiguous to the City Hall facility. She stressed the need to reach consensus at the council on the "discrete issues." Ms. Ortiz stated that she had asked for motion language to remove the railroad yards from the proposed Enterprise Zone, slated for discussion and action at a future meeting. Mayor Piercy stressed the importance of ensuring an adequate amount of public participation to support the progress that the council wished to make. She added that she believed when the City Manager and staff came before the council and provided their opinions on items their intent was to inform the council and not to influence decisions. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT F MINUTES Eugene City Council Goal-Setting Session Valley River Inn, Rogue Room February 25-26, 2005 10:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the goal-setting session of the Eugene City Council to order. Julia Novak of Management Partners, Incorporated, facilitated the session. Retreat Goals · To improve the effectiveness of the governing body · To build a working relationship between members of the governing body and the City's executive staff · To identify important goals and strategies for the City of Eugene to accomplish in the ensuing two years Vision and Goals Statements Vision and Goals The Council considered the existing Vision Statement and Council Goals and reflected on how they could/should be changed. The council and executive staff also assessed what the City is doing well with regard to each goal and what could be better. Existing Vision Statement Eugene is a regional center for education, culture and commerce, and a comfortable attractive and affordable place to live and work. We value the variety of our safe, livable neighborhoods and the beauty of our landscapes. We respect the perspectives and lifestyles of our active and diverse citizenry. We strive to provide sound, open government and to deliver effective, efficient services. Reflections on Vision Statement · Recreation is not mentioned · Economic development is not mentioned · No sense of future - should be more forward-looking · Leading with "regional center" - should be more about neighborhoods · "Citizenry" is not inclusive enough MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 1 Goals Setting Session · Want to be inspired · Welcoming · Concept of neighborhoods should be highlighted Existing Council Goals 1. Safe Community: A safe community where people feel secure and respected. 2. Sustainable Community Development: A community that retains a high quality of life and a healthy economy, effectively links land use and transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment. 3. Healthy Natural and Built Environment: A community that conserves and enhances the natural environment and provides an attractive and healthy place to live. 4. Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation: A community that offers a wide variety of opportunities for positive cultural, recreational and educational development for all. 5. Effective, Accountable Municipal Government: A local government that works openly and re- spectfully with and for everyone in the community. 6. Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources: A local government whose ongoing financial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of taxation and other revenue sources and are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services. Reflections on Goals · Welcoming - where does it fit? · Partnerships · Triple bottom line emphasis should be a consistent filter for all decisions o Sustainability o Social equity/human capital o Economic prosperity · Sustainability has become a loaded word · Equity - add to efficient and accountable local government · Neighborhoods, families and kids should be emphasized Assessment on Goals Safe Community + ? Crime Downtown crime impression · Low crime/high perception of safety · Very low rate of violent crimes · Low criminal crime rates · I don't fear walking through any neighborhood in Eugene · Low violent crime rate · Generally low crime Addressing issue of"racial profiling" - Community Policing/Neighborhood internal complaint procedure, PERF, ICMA Study MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 2 Goals Setting Session + ? Addressing increased Fire staffing levels Park safety Human Rights Commission Work Public Safety Building Chief Welcoming · Great new chief © · Ensure the City is welcoming to all · Made good start at community policing · Everyone feels welcome and safe in · A police chief that seems to know what Eugene we need to do · Not all populations feel safe or secure · Chief's commitment to community · Some minority community or people policing don't feel welcome - worse after 9/11 Department is trying to be transparent and Bicycles can't be parked safely involved in the community Keep working on these issues -- once again we Pedestrians are not respected by drivers need to acknowledge where we've been before we can ask all to move forward Most routine Eugene Police Department work Narrow view of public safety is very well done and professional Parks, amenities, skate parks, etc. Staffing Fire and EMS Fire Station development Inability to fund Hobson Study recommenda- tions Meth Lack of accountability and transparency Unrealistic expectations of level of service Confidence · Like to have public confidence in fairness of police re: racial profiling · Community members of color and other minorities often do not feel wel- come · Many in Eugene fear and distrust the EPD · Perception of the Police Department is not good Safe - not really, communities feel this is only for the privileged few and higher incomes Inadequate (real or perceived) Police and Fire coverage Staffing · Need more officers · Police staffing · Understaffed and resourced police department relative to service expecta- tions · Ratio of security rookies to seasoned vets is worsening MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 3 Goals Setting Session Sustainable Community Development + ? Works with local environmental, transporta- We don't often consider how our decisions tion and economic development organizations affect jobs or j ob opportunities or at best it's the last consideration Downtown Economic Development Strategy · Downtown revitalization and redevel- · Commitment to realistic and practical opment economic development · Strides being made downtown- · We have no economic strategy growth and development · ORI, Tare, Aurora downtown Capital Improvement Plans Subsidies for large firms that may not stay in the City Hospital siting Still have too many empty buildings and too few people downtown Presence of U of 0 is stabilizing influence Nodal development still only an idea We've made some good strides in transporta- Sustainability principles not applied or utilized tion funding - Lack of implementation or enforcement of strategies to achieve this goal Infill and redevelopment is occurring Continues to portray as perceived anti-business attitude Lots of sustainable practices Sometimes indistinguishable from "no growth" Trying to balance quality of life with economic Council staff decisions seldom go through development sustainability filter City organization making good intentional We keep ignoring the link between transporta- progress on sustainability tion and land use City administration and staff doing an Imbalance between growth demands and admirable job on operational and building reality vs. available space and infrastructure environ issues Planning often is reactive and piecemeal, not ~roactive and coordinated or comprehensive No unity of thought on what growth is and how it should happen Healthy Natural and Built Environment + ? Parks Acquisition vs. Maintenance · Parks, Recreation and Open Space · Acquisition vs. maintenance with · Variety of parks and open space limited resources · Open space acquisitions · Lack of balance between desired · POS bond projects outcomes and available resources (cost · POS bond issue vs. benefit) · Great parks system · City owns more land than it can care MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 4 Goals Setting Session + ? · Support for Parks and Open Spaces for or manage - wouldn't it be better to · Wonderful proactive open space sell some off and use for other priori- acquisition but mostly years ago ties? West Eugene Wetlands Santa Clara Community Park Wetlands We need better strategies to get a hospital in the core Wonderful riverfront and off street paths Stuck forever without Goal 5 competition We have many resources to achieve this We are squandering our resources Lead by example on sustainability practices Losing key natural resources parcels to development Encouraging progress downtown We need a better plan to maintain our parks and open space The highest quality of life, safe, clean, diverse City has no teeth when it comes to dealing with - welcoming! companies that pollute the environment Failure to protect headwaters Not enough care for natural environment (broad population) pesticides, toxins West Eugene Parkway We need a better plan for financing the $90M backlog Sometimes goes beyond accepted state and federal guidelines Accessible and Thriving Recreation and Culture + ? Increased service delivery with partners Financing: · Recreation is in "Bucket 4" in the budget process · Pay for play access issue · Accessibility more low-income pro- grams for all of Eugene · Lack of affordability of recreation · Recreation programs increasingly unaffordable for many · Need to make Cuthbert more accessi- ble to community groups · Does not provide adequate funding for full achievement · Accessibility limited by economic means · Programs/services not available for all Physical availability Recreational facilities are not equitably distributed City working towards accessibility for all Arts: MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 5 Goals Setting Session + ? · Lack of resources to support the arts · Arts · Not enough emphasis on arts - plenty on sports Great accessibility in our services Taking care of existing parks safety Loss of most adult recreation programs Performing Arts: Need to either really invest in pool facilities or · Hult, etc. get out of the business · Hult, Art Museum · Worlds greatest City of arts and out- doors Bike and pedestrian trails Lack of coordinated working/packaging of cultural entertainment options PROS Comp plan update Building some fine parks Great venues Library programming is good - like branches Use available resources (local volunteers) to aid in making opportunities available Do a lot with little resources Variety of services One of the best cities in the country - lots to do for everyone Effective~ Accountable Municipal Government + ? Technology Homeless · Technology is used to stretch limited dollars ·More and more information readily available on City Web site · Good at using Web fore more informa- tion and services Accreditation Effort to define some common visions · Public Works Accreditation · Accreditation programs in Public Works and Fire ICMA Performance measurement recognition Make us more effective Good intentions Clear goals and policy direction Talented hard working staff Low level of trust between elected and staff- a sense of no credibility Good working relationship between staff and Neighborhood empowerment Council Diversity programs Balance: MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 6 Goals Setting Session + ? · Struggle to balance conflicting needs and values · Listen too much to the squeaky wheel · Not equitable and negligible checks and balances Process: Neighborhood empowerment · Strong emphasis on civic engagement and public process · Lots of resources are committed to process · Lots of opportunity for public process · Support for open and accountable government · Allows opportunities for "citizen" input on most projects Feel like a culture of secrecy in planning and design Inclusive connected city services We don't seem to measure our progress against certain goals City Web site - much info is hard to find and very out of date A government that is perceived as on "one side" of community discussion Certain groups and individuals have more and easier ways than others Need to acknowledge where we've been before people can buy into supporting local government Process: · Process, process, process... · Process is used to trump decisions · Civic engagement · Large portion of community not en- gaged · Effective community engagement and participation in discussions · Need to design alternative ways to engage community Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources + ? Telecom Over-reliance on serial bond issues · Telecommunication fccs MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 7 Goals Setting Session + ? · Telecom tax resolved PERS Reform We're not good at saying no - City can't be all things to all people Local option gas tax Unable to comment State tax limitation - needs state wide fix Community resources in needs of schools first - we need to help them resolve financing - no one can get bonds passed Balance budget with some reserves Unfunded O&M in several areas - street maintenance, parks, recreation, etc. Staff has done well on finding operational Pavement preservation efficiencies in many areas Has used new and creative ways for funding Street preservation funds still inadequate sources People who can need to be willing to pay for Limited resources services A little progress regarding road maintenance City doesn't live within it's means - always revenue seeking revenue growth priorities are skewed Very substantial imbalance between available resources and service demands Concern that the tax and fee well is not bottomless We keep postponing the inevitable talk of tax reform or big cuts Failure to find new sources of revenue Limited progress on a long term alternative funding source Unable to develop long-term ongoing and stable funding sources Next Steps Solicit statements from Council for vision statement (inspirational ideas) · Consider and be prepared to discuss triple filter concept · Mayor Piercy and councilors Ortiz, Solomon and Pryor will come back at a process session with new ideas to consider · Need agreement on how organization will use/apply the vision · Outcome focus and measurement Issues and Priorities Each member of the governing body identified the priority issues they wished the governing body to consider as priority issues for the coming year. After all ideas were generated, there was an opportunity to take certain items off the table by placing a "veto" dot on the item - any item that received three or more "no" votes was removed from consideration in the ensuing priority discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 8 Goals Setting Session The complete list of all items generated is provided at the end of this document as Attachment A. Items removed were: · Support economic development opportunities that help retain and expand existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses · Develop plans for a transportation center with links to LTD Station, U of O, train station, Airport · Downtown circulating fixed rail street car · Restore community centers · Enhanced council support · Free parking downtown · Work with partners (Lane County and Springfield) in developing a strategy to make the metro area a destination point for tourism/conferences and conventions · Complete the buildable land inventory and integrate it into an economic develop- ment/sustainability/enterprise zone strategy The following items were retained for consideration in the prioritization process: Priority Issue Facilitate thc development of a hospital in Eugene's central core Identify a permanent funding source for street maintenance Conclude discussion on City Hall/Police Building · Get a plan · Decide if/when to take to voters · Anything else on ballot? Continue planning with other governments for a Civic Center for 8th Street area Complete and consider police department reviews and implement appropriate changes External police review and civilian oversight General tax reform and new revenue sources to adequately fund City services Launch neighborhood initiative · Encourage new community members to get involved in government process · Outreach to communities of color · Invest in associations to more effectively vet Policy discussions · Strengthen associations - especially with Planning & Police · Adequately fund neighborhood associations · Park safety · Minimize conversion away from residential uses · Regulate and focus infill Continue implementation of Downtown Plan · Explore partnerships · What can wc do around Courthouse · Center Court · Hole? Take advantage of recently authorized programs (Urban Renewal Districts, MUPTE, MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 9 Goals Setting Session Priority Issue etc.) to redevelop or continue redevelopment of downtown Find a new way to finance substandard streets Initiate conversation with Union Pacific regarding plans and potential disposition of rail yard in Ward 7 · Economic Development · Parks Crosswalks · Bike Paths to other neighborhoods Develop strategy to help the homeless in Eugene Site and begin to plan a community park(s) in the River Road/Santa Clara area Re-staff Fire Station #9 Support Farmers Market Develop and pursue alternative transportation projects in lieu of West Eugene Parkway Reach an acceptable solution on transportation issues in West Eugene: start something in 12 - 18 months Develop an economic strategy, not necessarily an "economic development" strategy, but maybe an "economic prosperity" strategy Review and research all economic development practices for cost benefit ratio before adoption Restore street lighting program City Council position on racial issues - work session to talk about race Invest in steps towards community policing Improve and measure response to property crimes - including bicycle theft Increase police funding for staffing (officers and support staff) Identify the few historical buildings/sites (Shelton-Johnson-McMurphy House) that the City should support and figure out a strategy to "sustain" them Complete natural resource study and initiate and make progress on roundtables upland wildlife habitat study Sister City Program · Encourage revitalization · Add Mexican Sister City Active government involvement in Sister City program Latino business owners - need resources for Latino business owners - to help with business questions Push "Arts and Outdoors" as marketing theme for Eugene tourism Review City Government practices for ways to increase equity and transparency and implement Internal staff committee on sustainabilit¥ goals in each department and evaluate Make safety and preservation of existing parks as big a priority as new parks Sustainability advisory committee or commission to engage the public Purchase valuable open space Reprioritize maintenance and preservation before new building for capital project categories (streets, parks and facilities) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 10 Goals Setting Session Debriefing Performance The following items were identified as potential discussion items for a structured debriefing. Due to time constraints, the group was unable to have the discussion. · Bond measure · Mayor's Economic Development Committee recommendations · Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan · Santa Clara land swap Day One Debrief What Went Well? What Could have been better? Grateful to have conversations we would not Disappointed with process - don't want to just have at a regular meeting reinforce things we are already doing - want to focus more on unique council goals (x2) Dinner was good! Things got vetoed that are important and unique Think it can be helpful to state positions on Need to really focus on some key things issues - foundational for important work Even if obvious to move from 1 to 39 potential goals is very positive See some new initiatives on the list Pleased to get a sense of new members Very helpful! Opportunity to get to understand one another Good to know some items we are spending lots of time on are in fact priorities Very beneficial to staff Culling process was interesting - good to know people don't like things; not just that something died for lack of support Good for council and executives to mix in a different session Appreciated start time to accommodate individual schedules Issues and Priorities Revisited Each member of thc governing body was provided with 12 "dots" to indicate their highest priority items for potential inclusion on thc final list of priority issues. Votes I Priority Issue ~ 6 I Facilitate the development of a hospital in Eugene's central core MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 11 Goals Setting Session Votes Priority Issue 6 Identify a permanent,funding source for street maintenance 7 Conclude discussion on City Hall/Police Building · Get a plan · Decide if/when to take to voters · An?thing else on ballot? 1 Continue planning with other governments for a Civic Center for 8th Street area 6 Complete and considerpolice department reviews and implement appropriate changes 2 External police review and civilian oversight 3 General tax reform and new revenue sources to adequately gund City services 7 Launch neighborhood initiative · Encourage new community members to get involved in governmentprocess · Outreach to communities of color · Invest in associations to more effectively vetpolicy discussions · Strengthen associations - especially with Planning and Police · Adequately fund neighborhood associations · Park safety · Minimize conversion away from residential uses · Regulate and focus in. fill 3 Continue implementation of Downtown Plan · Explore partnerships · What can we do around Courthouse? · Center Court · Hole? 3 Take advantage of recently authorized programs (Urban Renewal Districts, MUPTE, etc.) to redevelop or continue redevelopment of downtown 1 Find a new way to finance substandard streets 3 Initiate conversation with Union Pacific regarding plans and potential disposition of rail yard in Ward 7 · Economic development · Parks · Crosswalks · Bike Paths to other neighborhoods 4 Develop strategy to help the homeless in Eugene 3 Site and begin to plan a community park(s) in the River Road/Santa Clara area 6 Re-staff Fire Station # 9 1 Support Farmers Market 2 Develop and pursue alternative transportation projects in lieu of West Eugene Parkway 5 Reach an acceptable solution on transportation issues in West Eugene: start something in 12 - 18 months 2 Develop an economic strategy, not necessarily an "economic development" strategy, but maybe an "economic prosperity" strategy 1 Review and research all economic development practices for cost/benefit ratio before MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 12 Goals Setting Session Votes Priority Issue adoption 0 Restore street lighting program 4 City Council position on racial issues - work session to talk about race 1 Invest in steps towards community policing 1 Improve and measure response to property crimes - including bicycle theft 3 Increase police funding for staffing (officers and support staff) 0 Identify the few historical buildings/sites (Shelton-Johnson-McMurphy House) that the City should support and figure out a strategy to "sustain" them 3 Complete natural resource study and initiate and make progress on roundtables upland wildlife habitat study 0 Sister City Program · Encourage revitalization · Add Mexican Sister City 2 Active government involvement in Sister City program 1 Latino business owners - need resources for Latino business owners - to help with business questions 6 Push "Arts and Outdoors" as marketing theme for Eugene tourism 1 Review City government practices for ways to increase equity and transparency and implement 1 Internal staff committee on sustainability goals in each department and evaluate 2 Make safety and preservation of existing parks as big a priority as new parks 5 Sustainability Advisory Committee or Commission to engage the public 1 Purchase valuable open space 1 Reprioritize maintenance and preservation before new building for capital project categories (streets, parks and facilities) After completing the "Consensus Minus Two" process considering any item that received at least four affirmative votes, the following priority issues were agreed upon: · Launch neighborhood initiative · Conclude discussion on City Hall/Police Building · Facilitate the development of a hospital in Eugene's Central Core · Complete and consider Police Department reviews and implement appropriate changes · Push "Arts and Outdoors" as a theme for Eugene · Re-staff Fire Station #9 · City Council position on racial issues · Develop a strategy to help the homeless in Eugene The following preliminary action plans were fleshed out for new priority issues. Develop a strategy to help the homeless in Eugene · Review work of Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth · Articulate current situation and trends · Develop options · Inventory of services for homeless and those who interact with the homeless MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 13 Goals Setting Session · Talk with local organizations that already interact with the homeless · Talk with the homeless · Look at other successful strategies · Balance displacement alternatives · Identify and be willing to commit funds to the issue · Work with the legislature to address at a regional level · Strategies for dealing with those who are homeless by choice · Help for homeless families - preventative solutions before they lose their homes · Look at successes regarding homeless youth - Portland; State Commission · Get outside expert assistance to help shape our strategy · Winter camp - toilets and water for homeless - humane alternative to moving the problem around town. · Address homeless teenage girls' unique situation and identify housing for them · Billing issue with EWEB reconnect fee · Recognize that different strategies will be required for: Homeless due to economics (where most resources are available) c> Homeless youth (some resources exist) o Homeless by choice (mentally ill) who will not accept services We will know we are successful if... · We are doing something · One life at a time · Reduction in panhandling complaints · Some place to take people other than jail · Build on strategies that are already moving in the right direction Push "Arts and Outdoors" as a Theme for Eugene · Develop an inventory of existing arts and outdoor opportunities c) Identify gaps c) Conduct SWOT analysis · Develop a strategic plan for cultural services · Complete the Parks and Open Space Master Plan · Identify potential synergies to exploit · Look at who has resources - financial and expertise · Look at how this niche crosses different opportunities, including economic development; expand how we look at various issues - use as a filter for decision making and gauge for prioritizing · Conclude arts walk at a night club · Consider helping Actors Cabaret and Lord Leebrick Theater and others · Identify eco-tourism and arts-tourism opportunities · Promote to potential partners (including the County) in a non-threatening way · Central logo for "Arts and Outdoors" · Central way to help partners who have needs for permits, etc. We know we are successful if... MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 14 Goals Setting Session · When we can say we did things like this because of this new filter: helped Lord-Leebrick get a permit; acquired property; acquired parking · Do our stakeholders feel like their lot has improved? · Use survey to focus and measure - are new people doing things? · Benchmark a year out - did we accumulate the inventory and complete the GAP analysis? · Downtown is the place people think to go · Jacobs Gallery people are happy! Launch Neighborhood Initiative · Encourage new community members to get involved in process · Outreach to communities of color · Invest in associations to more effectively vet policy discussions · Outreach to associations with newsletters including items on how the City works · Strengthen associations - especially with Planning and Police · Adequately fund neighborhood associations · Park safety · Minimize conversion away from residential uses · Regulate and focus infill · Work with Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) · Go beyond existing associations · Articulate what is a successful association · Websites - City help fund development and link to all · Support newsletters · Training for neighborhood leaders · Official recognition to NLC · NLC communicate back to associations · Help neighborhoods access City departments · Invest in neighborhood newsletters in lieu of department publications · Neighborhood summit · Funding for associations? Newsletters? · Hook Santa Clara issue into this · Alternative dispute resolution strategies · Look at neighborhood preservation and integrity of neighborhoods as a decision-making filter o Physical infrastructure and o Physical evolution of neighborhoods · Identify neighborhood issues on community calendar · Park safety- commitment to this to keep neighborhoods safe and secure · Standards for regulations and focusing infill · DHPA Plan - re-look at the recommendations with this filter - may be conflicting · Alternative to Neighborhood Refinement Plan We know we are successful if... · Downtown neighborhood has an increase in home ownership and commercial vacancy rates decrease MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 15 Goals Setting Session · Less contentiousness around development applications · Higher levels of satisfaction on a wide variety of City programs · Percent of population covered by refinement plan less than 20 years old · Each home is in an association (and knows it) Each association meets criteria for healthy association · Community views associations as an effective tool for impacting decisions that affect neighbor- hoods · Neighborhoods have influence in decisions - tangible requirement for neighborhood input and buy-in ~ · Resolution of outstanding chronic neighborhood issues · Reduced call for service on park-related crime Conclude Discussion on City Hall/Police Building · Rules out Sheriff/Police co-location · Includes potential space for different jurisdictions (small scale, EWEB, LCOG) · Consolidate existing City functions in one place · City facility for City services - could contain some rental space but it is not a regional government center · Creative financing okay to consider · Renovation is on the table · Police could be in a separate facility We know we are successful if... · Bond measure passes · Consolidation of functions in one location Next Steps · Workplans for each priority issue will be brought back to the council · Council Subcommittee on vision and goals will take their work back to council at April process session (if time allows) · Put final 8 priority issues on agenda for March 7 Appendix A - List of potential priority issues considered · Captured as "Facilitate the development of a hospital in Eugene' s central core" o Hospital siting in urban core preferably (at this time) at EWEB site (goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and6) o Get a hospital sited in the core and south of Willamette River o Site hospital o Completion of last year's hospital goal (goals 1, 2, and 3) o Continue efforts to locate a hospital in the council approved "incentive zone" - this is a reinforcement of last year' s one and only goal/priority · Captured as "General Tax Reform and new revenue sources to adequately fund city services" o New source of revenue- tax reform o General tax reform proposals for adequate city service funding (possibly result in pro- posal to voters) (goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 16 Goals Setting Session · Captured as "Initiate a conversation with Union Pacific regarding plans and potential use for the rail yard in Ward 7" o Can we have a conversation with UP; what are their plans? We could use this land for economic development, parks, crosswalks - bike paths to all neighbors in Ward 7 o Union Pacific brownfield planning if opportunity is there · Captured as "Complete and consider police department reviews and implement appropriate changes" o Complete Police Department review and implement changes to reduce perceived prob- lems and promote good community relations (goals 1 and 5) c> Consider resolution of various EPD related studies and Police Commission work; take ap- propriate action (goals 1, 5, and 6) · Captured as "Identify a permanent funding source for street maintenance funding" o Work with Springfield, other cities and Lane County to develop a successful funding strategy for funding our street maintenance backlog (goals 6 and 3) o Identify funding sources and confirm these sources to address ongoing street maintenance back log (goals 2, 5, and 6) o Solve our road funding crisis to at least 75% of the way - if we need $9M/year, let's get to 7+M/year - TUF o Reduce backlog of preventive maintenance c~ Develop a permanent funding solution for road preservation projects and eliminatc exces- sive gas taxes · Captured as "Conclude discussion on City Hall/Police Building" o Conclude discussion on City Hall/Police Building - get a plan, then decide when we'll take it to the voters and look at what else will be on ballot ~ Replace City Hall and consolidate City services (goals 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) o Involve public in discussion of sustainable City office facilities; reach basic conclusion for work in 2006 (goals 1, 2, and 5) © Get agreement on City Hall/Police structure process · Captured as "Continue planning with other governments (County, State, Fed, LCOG, EWEB, School District) for a Civic Center for 8th Avenue area" · Decide on a specific option for a downtown civic center, recruit partners, and begin working toward financing and constructing · Captured as "Launch neighborhood initiative" (with detail) c> Invest in our neighborhood associations to more effectively vet city policy discussions o Similar to citizen police academy - neighborhood program to encourage new community members to be involved in government process c> Outreach to communities of color c> Neighborhood preservation initiative · Park safety · Minimize conversion away from residential uses · Regulate and focus infill · Others (goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) c> Adequate funding for neighborhood organizations o Strengthen neighborhood associations, especially regarding Planning Department and Eugene Police Department issues (goals 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 17 Goals Setting Session · Re-staff Fire Station #9 · Site and begin to plan a community park(s) in the River Road/Santa Clara area (Goal 4) · Homeless community - are we doing all we can to encourage people to homes? · Provide a coordinated service/information service center for the homeless - Homeless issues (Goal 2) · Develop and pursue alternative transportation projects in lieu of West Eugene Parkway (goals 1, 2, 4,,and 5) · Support Farmers Market · Review and research all economic development practices for cost-benefit ratio before adoption (goals 2, 3, 5, and 6) · Develop an economic strategy, not necessarily an "economic development" strategy - maybe an "economic prosperity" strategy · Reach an acceptable solution on transportation issue in West Eugene - start something in 12 to 18 months (goal 2, 3, and 4) · Restore street lighting program for neighborhoods · City Council position on racial profiling - work session - talk about race? Do we have a resolu- tion we can update? · Invest in steps toward community policing · Prevention of bicycle theft (Goal 1) · Improve and measure response to property crime · Identify the few historical buildings site (Shelton-Johnson-McMurphy house) that City should support and figure out a strategy to "sustain them" - doesn't mean they are the only things worth preserving in the community (Goal 3) · Increase police funding for staffing - officers and support staff · Internal staff committee on sustainability goals in each department and evaluate (Goal 6) · Review City government practices for ways to increase equity and transparency and implement (Goal 5) · Push Arts and Outdoors - market as Eugene tourism theme (Goal 6) · Latino businesses - Need a Chamber of Commerce for Latino business owners to help them with business questions · Active government involvement in Sister City program Sister City program to encourage revitalization of program also to add a Mexican Sister City · Finish Goal 5 (Natural Resource Study) and initiate and make progress on roundtables upland wildlife habitat study (goals 2, 3, and 4) · Help downtown (goals 2 and 3) · Take advantage of recently authorized programs (Urban Renewal Districts, MUPTE, etc.) to redevelop or continue redevelopment of the downtown area · Find a new method to finance substandard street upgrades · Continue implementation of Downtown Plan (goals 2 and 3) c> Explore partnerships MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 18 Goals Setting Session o What can we do around Courthouse? o Center Court? o Hole next to it? External Police Review and Civilian oversight (goals 1 and 5) · Reprioritize maintenance and preservation before new building for capital budget categories (streets, parks, facilities) (goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) · Purchase valuable open space · Sustainability advisory committee or commission to engage the public · Make safety and preservation of existing parks as big a priority as new ones (goals 1 and 4) Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25-26, 2005 Page 19 Goals Setting Session ATTACHMENT G MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 28, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Council President George Poling convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Mr. Pap6 and Mayor Kitty Piercy joined the meeting via speakerphone. A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling announced that the council met on February 25-26 in a goal-setting session and had arrived at a set of goals that it would adopt officially on March 7, 2005. He said several of the goals were new and some represented reaffirmations of previous goals or efforts. Mr. Poling characterized the sessions as productive. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Poling that the goal-setting session had been productive and collegial and a great deal of good work had been accomplished. Mr. Kelly called the council's attention the "Yes Viewpoint" column in the previous edition of The Register-Guard paper regarding the issue of racism in the community. He commended the authors, Mayor Piercy, Springfield Mayor Sir Leiken, and University of Oregon President David Frohnmeyer. He said the column reminded the community that ridding Eugene of racism was the responsibility of all. Mr. Kelly provided an update on the Region 2050 planning process, saying monthly meetings had resumed and considerable technical evaluation of three potential growth scenarios for the region was occurring. Those evaluations included transportation modeling, consideration of the impact of the scenarios on water supplies, etc. Mr. Kelly said the information from the evaluations would be used in a major public outreach process that would commence in spring or fall 2005. Ms. Taylor said bicycle theft was a growing problem at the Eugene Public Library and asked what could be done to stem that, giving that the City wished to encourage people to ride their bicycles to the library. Ms. Taylor asked if it was true that there would be no 24-hour medic unit at Fire Station 1. City Manager Dennis Taylor said no, and noted that information had been prepared in response to her questions that he would share with the full council. Mr. Pryor said he represented the council at the most recent meeting of the Lane Metro Partnership. The partnership received a report that indicated a decrease in inquiries but an increase in business expansions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 1 Work Session A discussion on how to restructure member contributions was planned. He said County Administrator Bill Van Vactor and the County commissioner in attendance at the meeting indicted that they may not support either Springfield's proposed Glenwood urban renewal district or Eugene's proposed enterprise zone due to their impact on tax revenues. He believed further discussion with the County was needed. Mr. Pryor said he had also attended a meeting of the McKenzie Watershed Council and heard an extensive and interesting presentation on invasive weeds in the watershed. The council would discuss the issue again in the future. Mr. Pryor reported on the most recent meeting of the Human Services Commission, saying the commis- sion and Chuck Dalton of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) discussed EWEB's program for low-income residents that attempts to avoid shutoffs before they occur. However, electricity was still shut off if the bill payer was unable to pay the City's stormwater charges, an element of the bill. Mr. Dalton was providing the commission with more information as to the scope of the issue, and it was possible the City's HSC representatives would return to the council requesting more discussion on the topic. Ms. Ortiz shared other councilors' pleasure in the recent goal-setting retreat. She expressed appreciation to Mr. Kelly for his remarks on racism. Ms. Ortiz said she attended the most recent meeting of the Santa Clara/River Road Task Force. The task force had requested official representation from the City Council. She indicated interest in participating on the task force, but deferred to the mayor in making that appointment. Ms. Bettman also believed the goal-setting session went well and had improved over previous years due to the different approach and process. She looked forward to both adopting and achieving the goals. Ms. Bettman said the Police Commission had broken down into subcommittees to process the civilian oversight issue, and the Adjudication and Oversight Subcommittee, of which she was a member, would meet on March 11 to discuss different models. She welcomed and encouraged people to attend those meetings and offer comments to the subcommittee. There was also the opportunity to enter into dialogue with subcommittee members. Ms. Solomon had no items. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for the council's recent goal-setting session and looked forward to making progress on some of the goals. She reported that she and Mr. Pap6 were in Washington, DC, as part of the United Front effort, working to secure federal funding for important City priorities. Mr. Pap6 said he attended his first Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Board of Directors meeting the previous week. He said that LCOG staff was working on several projects, including community sewer systems, street and road maintenance funding, and wireless internet access. City Manager Taylor thanked the council, mayor, and executive managers for their hard work on the council's goals. He said the work would be very help to staff in focusing its efforts. City Manager Taylor also thanked Mayor Piercy, President Frohnmeyer, and Mayor Leiken for the article in The Register-Guard. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 2 Work Session City Manager Taylor said that on March 3 at 8 a.m. at the Board of County Commissioners Conference Room, the chief executive officers of the cities of Springfield and Eugene, Lane County, Lane Community College, University of Oregon, the two Eugene school districts, Eugene Water & Electric Board, and Lane Transit District would meet to recommit to and re-sign the memorandum of agreement that guides those organizations' diversity efforts. The organizations would use the occasion to talk about where the community has been with regard to diversity as well as where it is going. City Manager Taylor took official note of the agreement between EWEB and Triad. He said that much work remained to be done. City Manager Taylor recalled the council's discussion on a possible moratorium on the construction of outdoor smoking facilities pending completion of its most recent review of the ordinance. City Attorney Jerome Lidz had prepared an ordinance that allowed the City to prohibit smoking in all outdoor smoking areas for which authorized construction did not begin before March 1, 2005. He asked the council to adopt that recommendation by motion so staff could present such an ordinance on April 11. He said the City could not achieve that goal through an administrative rule. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Man- ager to bring back an ordinance that would prohibit smoking in all out- door smoking areas for which authorized construction did not begin be- fore March 1, 2005. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if someone had a building permit but had not commenced construction by March 1, or if a permit was being processed but had not been approved. Mr. Lidz said neither situation would be protected under the contemplated ordinance. He said the council could choose to ban smoking virtually anywhere in the city regardless of whether someone had built a smoking area. He understood the purpose of the motion was to put people on notice that if they had not built such a facility yet, they might want to reconsider it because the council intended to prohibit smoking in such areas or planned to do so in the future. It was a "heads up" to the public so that they do not construct such an area, only to find later it is not allowed. Ms. Solomon said she was not opposed to the idea but preferred to allow those having made such an application make that decision on their own. Mr. Kelly asked if there were any such applications in the system. Keli Osbom, Planning and Develop- ment Department, was not aware of any such applications. Mr. Kelly pointed oUt that rather than prohibit such areas, there were other options under consideration. He supported the motion because it merely directed staff to return with such an ordinance. Mr. Pap6 concurred with the remarks of Mr. Kelly, reminding all councilors of the council's goal of protecting workers from secondhand smoke. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the motion and the approach. Mr. Poling said he would support the motion because it put people on notice that the council was going to MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 3 Work Session be reexamining the entire issue, and there may or may not be changes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Resolution 4826 Adopting Snow and Ice Removal Policies and Repealing Resolution 4278 Jeff Lankston of the Public Works Department's Maintenance Division joined the council for the item. Mr. Lankston recalled that the council adopted a resolution the previous year allowing the use of de-icers and anti-icers for a period of time to allow the City to experiment with their use. The council requested that staff continue to examine the environmental issues associated with the use of the deicers and anti- icers, and return with information on their trial use before April 2005. Mr. Lankston reviewed the City's use of de-icers and anti-icers, noting that de-icing products had been used five times on City transportation facilities since December 2004. He said the product being used, calcium magnesium acetate (CMA), worked very well. It was effective for a period of several days, which avoided the need for repeated daily sanding applications at one-sixth the cost. Mr. Lankston briefly reviewed the results of the City's research regarding the use of de-icers and anti- icers, noting that information was provided in the council packets and copies of the two reports were in the council office. In regard to CMA, the literature indicated a concern with biological oxygen demand (BOD) if placed in high quantities in a waterway. However, the literature indicated that the concentra- tions being used on roadways did not create problems with BOD, even with ditches adjacent to roadways. Mr. Lankston believed there were no environmental ramifications from the use of the product on City streets. Mr. Lankston spoke to the issue of vehicle corrosion, indicating that was not an issue in regard to the use of CMA. Mr. Lankston noted that the council approved the use of magnesium chloride but staff had not used that product on the streets. A Colorado study had examined the product's impact and concluded that the chloride in the material could damage vegetation close to the road in sufficient strong concentrations, and trace metals in the product should be restricted. However, the study also concluded the product was unlikely to cause or contribute to environmental damage greater than 20 yards beyond the roadway. The City of Boulder had been using the product for many years and extensive water testing indicated no significant impacts to water quality or aquatic life. He noted that most of Eugene's snow routes had curbs and gutters to limit the product's contact with the vegetation and it would be diluted to a level of 640:1 before it reached a catch basin and was further diluted. Mr. Lankston said staff proposed only to use products that met the strict standards set by the Pacific Northwest Snowfighters, which established specifications for products used in winter maintenance that emphasize safety, environmental preservation, infrastructure protection, cost-effectiveness, and perform- ance. He noted that the corrosion levels for magnesium chloride met the organization's specifications. Mr. Lankston reviewed the three options before the council: MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 4 Work Session 1. Amend the City's Ice and Snow Removal Policy by repealing Resolution 4278 and replacing it with a proposed new resolution (see Attachment A). By adopting the proposed new resolution, anti-icing and de-icing chemicals will be permitted in quantities appropriate for ice and snow control on streets and staff will be able to move ahead with the purchase of application equip- ment. 2. Adopt the proposed new resolution but amend Section 3 to allow for the use of anti-icers and de- icers through April 1, 2006. Amending Section 3 would allow for the use of anti-icing and de- icing agents for an additional year. This option would result in operating inefficiencies as staff will be unable to purchase equipment for liquid de-icer application and, further, would not realize the economy of scale in purchasing liquid de-icer due to limited storage capacity: Annual rental rates are approximately 15percent of the cost of a new liquid applicator. With this option the City will have spent $3,500 on rental fees over the two-year trial period. 3. Allow Resolution 4784 to sunset, at which time Resolution No. 4278 will go back into effect. This resolution states that the City will not use anti-icing or de-icing chemicals in quantities required for ice and snow control on streets. De-icing chemicals with corrosion inhibitors may be used in quantities necessary to keep sand stockpiles and sanding equipment workable. With this option, maintenance staff is limited to using only plows and sanding rock for providing safe road condi- tions for the traveling public during winter storms. Mr. Poling called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the potential impact of de-icers on the vegetation in the street frontage of a house. That did not sound like a negligible effect to her. Ms. Taylor determined from Mr. Lankston that staff anticipated using magnesium chloride. Mr. Lankston added that CMA was only effective to temperatures above 25 degrees. Magnesium chloride was effective to temperatures of zero degrees and was less expensive than CMA. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's concern about the impact of the products on vegetation, Mr. Lankston clarified that the Boulder study examined how far from the roadway it took magnesium chloride to get a dilution of 500:1, at which point the effects of the material became negligible. The City's dilution before the product reached the catch basin was about 640:1. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the cumulative effect of the products in question, and about the fact the studies being cited were "somewhat old"; for example, the Boulder study was done in 2002. She wanted to know if the studies considered cumulative effects. The Boulder study mentioned that chloride-free de- icers were not used due to their expense, but she did not think that should be a determining factor. She asked if the costs of chloride-free de-icers had dropped as predicted in the study. Mr. Lankston noted that CMA was a chloride-free de-icer and it was about three times more costly than magnesium chloride. Staff was looking at other chloride-free de-icers and would continue to do so. Several were used with magnesium chloride as an anti-corrosive additive. Ms. Taylor was not inclined to support the continued use of the chemicals in question. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the thoroughness of the report and said that the Boulder study gave MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 5 Work Session him some level of comfort given that community's strong environmental tradition. He said that Ms. Taylor had raised an interesting question in regard to the persistence of the chemicals in question, and suggested that be further researched. Mr. Lankston said that CMA breaks down into calcium and magnesium ions and acetate as soon as it encounters water. The acetate was biodegradable. The calcium and magnesium were not very mobile but were commonly found in both soil and water and were not really a problem. With regard to magnesium chloride, the chloride broke down fairly quickly in the environ- ment, so there was not a persistence problem, particularly at the levels being used. Mr. Kelly said the resolution before the council appeared to lack a section included in the previous resolution that stipulated a de-cier would not be used unless it was approved by the City Manager, and only after the manager received information that the de-icer was safe and cost-effective. Mr. Lankston had no objection to including that section. Mr. Pryor said he was impressed with the report and the effort it represented. He recalled the traditional use of salt to combat icy conditions, which was also corrosive. He believed the de-icers in question were a great step forward in contrast to both that and sand and gravel. Mr. Pryor was pleased staff was making an effort to use the most effective products with the least impact on the environment and on City streets. He was inclined to support the resolution and wait to hear more in the future as the City had more experience with the chemicals in question. Ms. Bettman asked if staff was proposing to use both CMA and magnesium chloride. Mr. Lankston said yes, as different conditions warrant different treatments. CMA worked well as an anti-icer but was expensive to use as a de-icer, and it was not very effective below 25 degrees. Ms. Bettman said she had to balance the gain from the use of the products against the hazards they caused. She expressed concern that the magnesium chloride had residual elements of other heavy metals that were bio-cumulative, like lead and cadmium. Mr. Lankston said the Pacific Northwest Snowfighters set strict limitations on both lead (1 part per million) and cadmium (.2 parts per million), which was essentially the testable limit for those metals. The intent of the specifications was to keep such metals out of the product. Mr. Lankston said since the studies had been done, much progress had been made in eliminating those elements. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a product that did not contain heavy metals. Mr. Lankston reiterated that the intention of the specifications was to eliminate those metals. City Manager Taylor indicated the City would only buy products that met the specifications set by the Pacific Northwest Snowfighters. Ms. Bettman said that while a threshold had been established, the products still contained those heavy metals. Mr. Lankston repeated that the specifications were intended to eliminate those metals. Ms. Bettman did not believe she received a definitive answer to her question. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about monitoring for water quality and aquatic life, Mr. Lankston said the City monitors all stream corridors now and would continue to monitor them for impact. He said if it was found a product was harmful to the environment, the City would discontinue its use. Ms. Bettman asked if the City would retain its sanding equipment. Mr. Lankston said yes. He said the City would continue to sand and plow snow. Ms. Bettman asked if the use of chemical de-icers required new equipment. Mr. Lankston said the spray units that City uses fit into its existing trucks and cost about $10,000. Ms. Solomon asked if the City had to store the materials or if staff filled the spray units on an as-needed MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 6 Work Session basis. Mr. Lankston said the City filled up on CMA in Junction City as needed and did not store the materials on site. He had not yet secured a supplier for magnesium chloride and was unsure of the logistics of securing that chemical. Ms. Solomon comtnended the staff materials and indicated her support for the resolution. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Lankston that that magnesium chloride was the less costly of the two products, and the application costs were similar for both. Sanding was the most expensive option because of the cost of sweeping and collecting the sand after it had been used. Mr. Poling said that the chemicals in question worked and it was a lot better than asking residents to attempt to drive through sand. He asked if the resolution precluded the City from looking at a new de- icing product. Mr. Lankston said no, adding that staff intended to continue to seek the best de-icers available. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of comments. Mr. Kelly suggested the products did not include heavy metals by design; rather, they were contaminants in the manufacturing product, and to the degree the products met the specifications, it indicated that to as low a concentration as could be tested for, they were not present. Mr. Lankston concurred. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's clarification. Ms. Taylor was concerned about who made the decision to use the products in question. City Manager Taylor suggested that Mr. Kelly's suggestion to include a section from the previous resolution ensured he would make the decision. Ms. Taylor also expressed concern about the fact that magnesium chloride got slippery in warm conditions, which could occur after the product was applied. She questioned how long those conditions persisted. Mr. Lankston said slipperiness lasted until the product dried on the streets. He did not think the product would be used in warm conditions, although it might be placed during a day that was warmer than freezing in anticipation of freezing conditions later that night. Staff had not experienced any problems with slipperiness as long as it used the product at levels of 20 to 35 gallons per lane mile. Ms. Taylor asked if staff would have used sand in recent months if the resolution had not in force, pointing out the use of sand would still have made it possible for residents to drive. Mr. Lankston said yes, but sand also had environmental effects. It broke down and caused higher dust levels and if not removed, could be washed into the streams and add to silt problems. Ms. Taylor asked if staff would seek council permission to use the chemicals mentioned in the Boulder study if they became less expensive. Mr. Lankston said that staff intended to use the best product for the environment possible, balancing that against the cost of the product. He likened the products to a toolbox containing tools for use in specific conditions. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lankston confirmed that the resolution before the council contained no sunset clause. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the work that the department did, saying that she felt safe when she traveled on City streets in icy conditions to reach her place of employment. She commended the staff materials. Ms. Ortiz was happy to hear that the City attempted to save money when it could without specific direction from the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 4286, adopting ice and snow removal policies with the addition of Section 6 from Resolution 4784, and repealing Resolution 4278. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. LANE COUNTY TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE UPDATE Mayor Piercy introduced the item, reminding the council of the regional tourism summit that occurred in January 2004. Since that time, the Lane County Tourism Infrastructure Task Force was formed and had met over the past year. Members were present tonight to share their findings. She encouraged the council to consider the presentation and moving forward with the recommendations. Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director Angel Jones introduced Bob Zagorin, chair of the task force, and Kari Westlund, chief executive officer of the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Lane County (CVALCO). Mr. Zagorin thanked former Mayor James Torrey and Mayor Piercy for their work supporting the task force. Mr. Zagorin emphasized the importance of tourism to the region and suggested a logical link between tourism and Eugene's model of sustainability and local economic development. He said that the summit produced a consensus about the importance of tourism and led to the formation of the task force. He reviewed the findings of the task force, which confirmed that Lane County had a large and growing gap in terms of convention and meeting space and first-class hotel lodging. Mr. Zagorin said the task force was asking all of the communities in Lane County to commit to the goal of maintaining the County's place as the leading tourism destination in Oregon outside of Portland and to commit key staff to a technical working group to study the infrastructure gaps and problems. Mr. Zagorin reported that the task force developed a list of key tourism projects, although the list was not prioritized. He reviewed the list, which included a regional convention center with full-service hotel, an outdoor sports complex, and a visitor center. Mr. Zagorin said the task force did not endorse any project or convention center site as it believed a careful cost/benefit analysis was the first order of business for the new regional comtnission. He acknowledged the need for funding but emphasized that the task force offered no recommendations relating to taxing authority. He further emphasized the task force's commitment to public-private partnerships. Ms. Westlund provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Tourism Infrastructure in Lane County. Copies of the presentation were made available to the council. She noted the adopted goals of the task force: 1) The City of Eugene will work with Lane County and other cities throughout the county to retain our collective position as the largest regional hub of tourism and convention activity in Oregon outside the Portland metro area; and 2) The City of Eugene will work with the Lane Board of County Commis- sioners and other city partners to form an interim working group to assess and recommend a permanent interjurisdictional entity to assess, build, and operate tourism-related infrastructure. The presentation contained comparisons of existing and planned local hotel and motel space with that of other northwest cities, local economic indictors, data on current room tax revenues, and data on the economic impact of convention and conference centers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Westlund invited questions. Mr. Kelly thanked the presenters and the task force for all their work. He agreed with them on the significance of the tourism business to the local economy. He noted that at its recent goal-setting session, the council had adopted as a high-priority goal that Eugene establish itself as a city of the arts and outdoors. Mr. Kelly asked about the impact on City resources with regard to money and time from participating in an interim working group. City Manager Taylor anticipated the City would provide a technical staff person to assist in the process. He did not anticipate a heavy resource demand on the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department or the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Kelly wanted to ensure that neither motion prepared by staff conferred any new budget authority for spending. City Manager Taylor indicated that they did not. Mr. Kelly asked if council approval would be required for the creation of a regional tourism commission, if one were recommended. Ms. Westlund and City Manager Taylor indicated yes. Mr. Pryor said that the issue of tourism was a regional issue and should be approached that way. He said two words came to him when considering the issue: "bold" and "high risk." Just as past ventures such as the Hult Center and Hilton Hotel were high-risk, the City may find itself needing to take similar action relatively soon. He believed that if the City tried to stay where it was and maintain the status quo, it would be moving backward in relation to other communities in Oregon. Tourism was a significant source of revenue and it was relatively clean and low-impact. He said the community needed to act sooner rather than later. Ms. Bettman thought the goal a laudable one for Lane County. She said the City Council had already established a goal related to the arts and outdoors. She believed that the task force was asking for much more than a conceptual sign-on given the desired outcome of building infrastructure and tourist facilities. She did not want to indicate now that at some future point there would be compliance on the part of the City, because she did not consider tourism a high priority for Eugene given its other needs. Ms. Bettman perceived the difference between a full-service hotel and limited-service hotels to be a public subsidy, and she could not make a case for such a subsidy at a time when she was receiving constituent calls complain- ing about the police response times and drug dealing in the parks. Ms. Bettman said that it was the role of municipal government to set the stage for tourism by providing excellent parks and public safety to create a good environment for tourism to happen. She did not want the City of Eugene to be in the convention and hotel industry. Ms. Solomon did not interpret the task force appeal as a request to become involved in the convention and hotel industry. She believed the request aligned with the council's goals discussion, and that the City needed to be at the table when the interim working group met. To do otherwise would be short-sighted as it meant the City would never have a say in the outcome. She agreed with Mr. Pryor that the issue was regional and the City should be part of making the region succeed. Mayor Piercy noted her support for the task force recommendations. Mr. Pap6 thanked the presenters for the report. He agreed that tourism was a regional issue. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 9 Work Session highlighted the statement in the EcoNorthwest report included in the meeting packet that more data was needed. He said if the City participated in the interim working group, it should focus on getting the information needed to determine which capital projects were most economically feasible. Mr. Papfi suggested that Eugene had good facilities but perhaps they were not Class A facilities. He asked Ms. Westlund for suggestions on how to get more modern and competitive rooms in the community. Ms. Westlund responded that the task force had learned of many different models, many of which were mixed- use with a conference, hotel, and sports component. Many included residential and retail components as well. Developers were increasingly looking to 24-hour-a-day build-outs that evened out business cycle trends within the individual components. She believed that there were many different forms of develop- ment that could get Eugene-Springfield where it wanted to be. Ms. Taylor said she became worried when she read about "tourist-related infrastructure" because she assumed that meant a convention center. She thought the City should depend on private industry to provide more hotel space and more meeting rooms. If they were needed, someone would probably build them. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about the discussion because of her mixed feelings on the topic. She believed it was good to have partners but often felt that Eugene was left "holding the bag" on projects. That was her concern with regard to the proposal before the council. She had not considered the approach being called for by the task force as part of the council' s goal for the art and outdoors. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the conferences and conventions that came to Eugene as it brought more diversity into Eugene and gave a "different feeling" to the community. Mr. Poling said that tourism was important to the City and to the region. He pointed out a vote in support of the staff-prepared motions did not commit the City to anything other than the resources needed to start a multi-jurisdictional process. He wanted to be involved at the beginning of that process. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly indicated support for the proposed motions, and encouraged the CVALCO representatives to take the cautionary comments of Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman to heart. He did not see the City getting into the convention industry, although there may be some specific opportunity for the City to provide some leverage in the future. He believed existing facilities were inadequate, but noted the statement in the EcoNorthwest report that improving what existed was likely to be more cost-effective than building new large facilities that required a lot of money. The report specifically mentioned the potential of the Hult Center and Hilton Hotel as a regional convention center, and that a second tower of rooms had been planned for the hotel when demand warranted. He would follow the progress of the interim working group carefully to ensure that such alternatives were studied. Mr. Kelly noted a statement in the EcoNorthwest report that read "The implication was that if a gap was identified the proper policy would be to fill the gap." He suggested that might not necessarily be the right policy. The report contained several cautionary statements about the huge losses that civic convention centers could experience. Ms. Bettman said that the Hilton Hotel did not belong to the City and the company had plenty of assets if it wanted to expand. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman did not think that Eugene, as the largest community in the county, would necessarily benefit from increased tourism. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the possibility a special district could be used as a funding mechanism. Ms. Bettman said that she supported the expansion of convention facilities. However, she did not think the City was being consistent in its approach. She heard people argue for privatization as being more cost- effective, but in this case the City was considering a public subsidy to private business. If it did so, it would be competing with existing private businesses. That did not make sense to her. Mr. Pap6 wanted to move forward with the interim working group. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need to do something bold, but he did not want to "jump on a bandwagon" to compete with other communities building convention facilities. He hoped the working group could be more strategic and focus on niches such as the arts and outdoors. Mr. Pryor said the discussion had been a good one, and he thought the council could take a first step without taking out its checkbook. He wanted to demonstrate the City's support for the initiative, and suggested the staff-prepared motions were the first step toward demonstrating that support. Ms. Taylor commended Mr. Papa's remarks, saying that Eugene did not have to be like other communi- ties. She said that Eugene should be the best it could be at what it was good at. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the community should maintain and enhance what it had. Mayor Piercy said the motion merely called for the formation of a group to assess a structure; it did not commit the City to any project or plan. She believed it would be good to have a conversation about the issue in an organized way that resulted in a recommendation that addressed the public interest and fit Eugene. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a regional tourism goal to be ac- complished through multi-jurisdictional cooperation: "The City of Eugene will work with Lane County and the City of Springfield to retain its collective position as the largest re- gional hub of tourism and convention activity in Oregon outside the Portland metro area." Ms. Taylor indicated her second was a formality in her role as the most senior council member. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting no. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to form an interim group to assess a struc- ture for a permanent interjurisdictional entity to establish and maintain tourism facilities and infrastructure in Lane County. Ms. Taylor indicated her opposition to the motion, saying it was "worse than the other one." Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor. She said that the motion formalized the commitment mentioned in the first motion. She believed the proposal would result in a structure similar to that of the Metropolitan MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 11 Work Session Policy Committee (MPC), which she maintained was a multi-jurisdictional body that had taken away decision-making authority from local elected governments. She further objected to the proposal that the members would be appointed rather than elected. Mr. Kelly said that if the motion "felt like the son of MPC" he would oppose it. The motion did not call for the formation of a permanent body, but rather a working group to decide what a permanent body would look like. Before a permanent body could be formed, the council would have to approve Eugene's participation. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. The meeting adjoumed at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 12 Work Session ATTACHMENT H MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall February 28, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap6. Council President George Poling called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Piercy and Councilor Pap6 were in Washington, DC, participating in the United Lobbying Front trip. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Councilor Poling reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, expressed support for the Lane Transit District (LTD) bus drivers in their current contract negotiations. He felt the drivers needed to have adequate health benefits. He noted LTD Chief Administrator Ken Harem was in Washington, DC. He did not think this was appropriate given the grave nature of the negotiations. He suggested the bus drivers merge with the health clinic at Lane Community College (LCC). Lyndell Wilkin, 3065 Whitbeck Boulevard, said a recent subdivision had been built in the backyard of a house on her unimproved street. Historically, she explained, the road was gravel, maintained under the "grade and gravel program" until that program had been cut. At this point, the 17 homeowners served by the road assumed responsibility for the road. She stated that it had become difficult to control the dust and keep potholes patched. Working with City staff, she said, the neighbors had been able to pave the road. She wished to focus on the damage caused by the development. She stated that neighbors had met with transportation engineer Gary McNeel regarding the development and had been assured that the road would be brought back to pre-construction condition with an additional inch of overlay on it. She underscored that prior to the development the road was level. Now there were dips and standing water and a lot of cracking. She related that after the construction, the neighborhood still had confidence it would be remedied, but now had been informed that the road was old and no one would be responsible for bringing it back up to its previous state. Carol DeFazio, 1437 West 10th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the steering committee for the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN). She explained that the group's members had formed the committee in order to be effectively involved in the Chambers Node Revisited (CNR) project. She noted that one goal of the CNR project was the creation and adoption of zoning codes that "promote maintenance of the residential character in the area between 18th and 13th avenues and Polk and Garfield MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session streets." She said CAFHN was a grassroots group of approximately 35 people that included owner- occupants, renters, landlords, and investors. She underscored that the destructive impact of infill on the west side neighborhood was an important issue for the group. She related that since the initial CNR meeting in the fall, CAFHN had been collaborating to help identify infill impacts and to get effective standards written and adopted. She shared that the group grappled with some of the same issues the council did, such as how to grow wisely and how to grow in a way that preserves the health and residential nature of the City's traditional core neighborhoods. She did not think the City could afford to ignore those questions. She conveyed the group's support for smart growth, adding that truly smart development did not squander the established neighborhoods that provide examples of successful, pedestrian-friendly, transportation-efficient lifestyles. She said the group's commitment had caused members to spend hundreds of hours on research and discussions and the result of this work, the Chambers Node Revisited Interim Neighbors report, was in the council packets for this meeting. She encouraged the council to read the report and visit the referenced Web site. Matt Purvis, 1391 West Broadway Street, said he had attended most of the CNR meetings and was involved in the previous Chambers area project a few years earlier. He explained that he had moved to that neighborhood because he valued the livability of the area and the easy access to downtown. He related that during the last few years he had witnessed a myriad of infill projects that severely compromised the quality of nearby existing homes. He noted that the coming weekend he would be helping another family move out of this neighborhood due to the diminishing of neighborhood quality. He opined that the qualities of the west side neighborhood were worth preserving. David $onnichsen, 2435 Skyline Boulevard, stated that six years earlier he had been appointed to the East Alton Baker Citizens Planning Committee and he had found it difficult to find a context for the work the committee was intended to accomplish. He said much progress had been made since then and now each councilor had a copy of the most recent report from the group, now named the Whilamut Natural Area Citizens Planning Committee. He related that he had asked committee members to craft a statement communicating the one thing they wanted others to know about the park and to mention some of the most recent accomplishments of that group. He provided copies of those statements to the councilors for reference purposes as they made new appointments to the group. Deborah Jeffries, 3790 North Delta Highway, clarified that her statement was not about whether the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) should be sold, but about the process. She clarified that she was not present for the recent EWEB hearing on the issue, but had extrapolated her information from the media. She called Councilor Bettman's remarks "bureaucratic bullying." She had not read nor was she aware of any council authorization for Councilor Bettman to state to the EWEB board the intent of future council action and whether it would support its use or financial contribution a particular buyer of that property. She believed a clarifying statement should be forthcoming if the council had made that decision in an executive session or another session. She likened the comments to "s!gning a blank check of support" prior to determining the real economic costs. Rob Handy, 455-1A River Road, discussed concerns about the future of the Union Pacific Railroad yards, including how pollution would be mitigated and how to proceed with planning for development in the event the railroad company did sell the property. He asserted that the City supported a comprehensive public planning process for the railyards, including a focus on tax exemptions for development of brownfield sites. He also acknowledged that tax abatement was harmful to schools. But he recognized the clear, demonstrable benefit of tax exemptions in the development of the economy and, more specifically, living wage j obs. He thought economic redevelopment of the railyards could include an MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session aquatic center, a regional sports complex, or a University of Oregon program for bio-remediation. He wondered if the City Council could ask what "the rush" was for getting an enterprise zone. He supported pursuing a master planning process for the railroad property. Jana Jackson, 1012 East 22nd Avenue, spoke in support of the actions of Officer Randy Ellis, who had spray-painted "No Soliciting" signs on some street comers to deter panhandling. She read into the record a letter signed by approximately 40 people expressing gratitude to and support for Officer Ellis. Copies were provided to the council. She underscored that she and the other signors of the letter disapproved of people "demonizing" Officer Ellis. Kevin Matthews, Box 1588, president of Friends of Eugene, noted that PeaceHealth had signed the settlement of a legal action which committed it to either sale or redevelopment of the Willamette Street site within two years. He hoped that the council would consider the implicit intention of something happening with a very "positive possible hospital site." Mr. Matthews alleged that the City was committing an error in Administrative Order 530501, which replaced Administrative Order 530207(f) regarding land use fees. He asserted that an interim city manager had signed it into being and it had not been adequately inspected. He said the order changed the basis of neighborhood association appeal fees to 25 percent of the land use fee, a change that increased the fees from a maximum of $250 to a maximum of $4,000. He predicted this would be crippling to neighborhood associations. Charles Tilt, 85581 South Willamette Street, believed the West 8th Avenue low-income housing development had not received an adequate public hearing. He thought the process had a "unique and narrow" perspective because of how it was purchased and how the Request for Proposal (RFP) process had been undertaken. He did not understand why there was not more public outrage and why the Downtown Neighborhood Association had not spoken out about it. He did not believe that the housing project would be compatible with its neighbor, the WOW Hall. He submitted his comments in writing. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris Street, shared comments that she had gathered informally in opposition to the development of low-income housing next to the WOW Hall. She submitted a report she had written to the council. She listed the top reasons she felt the low-income housing development should not be constructed on the site, such as the challenges that the site presented for development, that she believed the public process was inadequate, that police visits to the site would be increased due to noise, noise attenuation might harm the adjacent historic WOW Hall, and that no research had been conducted on rehabilitation of the Ridenour Building. She asked that the council consider holding a public hearing. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to extend the Public Forum by six minutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Jonathan Pincus, 590 North 12th Avenue, #5, recognized that the WOW Hall had decided to embrace the low-income housing project planned for the lot adjacent to it. Speaking as a former manager of the WOW Hall, he felt the WOW Hall Board had made a "profound error" in taking that position. He thought the council had made a profound error as well in making the process a "one value planning process." He encouraged the council to open up the process to a format that would allow all of the issues to be examined. He was also concerned that the WOW Hall could be damaged in the process of attenuating MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session noise issues. He noted that he had written the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the building. Charles Peters, 2435 Potter Street, member of the Board of Directors of the WOW Hall, wished to remind everyone present that the process for the development of the site adjacent to the WOW Hall had transpired over the course of more than a year and the public had many opportunities to comment on it. He stated that the Ridenour Building had been studied for 20 to 25 years and that the roof was being held up by columns and the walls were bowed. He explained that the WOW Hall supported the project because the developers had "bent over backwards" to attenuate the sound issues and because the developers were a non-profit that sought to benefit the community. He thought it looked like a win-win situation and that the WOW Hall could fare much worse with an adjacent commercial development. He supported approval of the project. Councilor Poling closed the Public Forum and opened the floor for councilor comments and questions. Councilor Kelly thanked those who testified for speaking at the forum. He averred that he did not hear anything in Councilor Bettman's remarks at the public hearing equivalent to what was reported in the paper. He thought the councilor's comments were interpreted by the reporter and asserted that one should not believe everything one read in the paper. Regarding the Whitbeck Boulevard situation, Councilor Kelly asked staff to provide a memorandum that indicated what the City committed to, what the condition of the street was, and what the City and the property owners could do to mitigate the situation. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for speaking. She noted her familiarity with the Whitbeck Boulevard situation and agreed that the City had made promises that it had not followed through with. Councilor Taylor said, regarding the CNR project, that infill was damaging neighborhoods throughout the City. She thought the City land use codes needed updating. Councilor Taylor registered her agreement with Mr. Handy's assertion that the City should not be in a rush to form an enterprise zone. Councilor Taylor thought there should have been a greater opportunity for an open process in the potential development of the property adjacent to the WOW Hall. She called the WOW Hall a significant part of the Eugene downtown scene. Councilor Solomon thanked Ms. Jackson for testifying regarding the panhandling issues in the area where she did business. She appreciated that the topic was kept in the forefront of the council and hoped that the council would take steps to address it. She asked the City Manager about a report that covered the topic of panhandling that was slated to be presented. City Manager Dennis Taylor responded that there was a working group of people from the Public Works Department, the Eugene Police Department, and the City Attorney's Office who were working on this report and he was uncertain as to when it would be finished. He said he would bring it before the council when it was done. Councilor Bettman thanked those who testified. She thanked Councilor Kelly for his clarifying comments regarding her testimony before EWEB. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session Regarding the WOW Hall issue, Councilor Bettman thought a larger issue was brewing as the City sought to create a 24-hour downtown while increasing population density there. She suggested the City address these concerns in the code through a delineation of the sorts of building materials one should use for noise mitigation. She asked staff to come up with some strategies for addressing sound conflicts between housing and entertainment venues downtown. City Manager Taylor surmised that she wanted research about what the best practices were across the country. Councilor Bettman affirmed that this was what she wanted and said she also wished to see what strategies were being used in this particular development. City Manager Taylor averred that the larger research item would likely take longer than the two-hour rule. He said he would determine the scope of it and provide her with further information. Councilor Bettman appreciated that Mr. Matthews brought up the land use fees issues. She remembered the administrative order and was uncertain, at present, as to how to remedy the situation. Regarding the CNR activities, Councilor Bettman agreed that infill could be a "good thing" if done well. She noted that the council had agreed over the course of its strategy session to pursue a neighborhood initiative that looked into ways to preserve neighborhoods. She urged the CAFHN neighbors to visit the City Web site and review the downtown housing analysis. Councilor Kelly asked for a memorandum regarding the change in land use appeal fees and possible strategies to address it. Councilor Taylor concurred, adding that it was alarming that neighborhoods would have to pay a huge fee to appeal a land use decision. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes January 19, 2005, Work Session - January 24, 2005,Work Session - January 26, 2005, Work Session - February 8, 2005, Process Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of an Ordinance Concerning Prohibited Smoking and Amending Sections 6.225, 6.230, 6.235, 6.240, and 6.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman indicated that she had submitted corrections to the minutes electronically and asked to pull Item C. She asked if the council would see the changes on the Santa Clara park site prior to the council break. City Manager Taylor said this item was not on the tentative agenda at this point, but indicated that it would be triggered by the completion of the two appraisals, estimated to be done by May. Councilor Poling deemed Councilor Bettman's corrections to the minutes, without objection, approved. Councilor Kelly indicated he had also submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Councilor Poling deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item C, passed unanimously, 7:0. City Manager Taylor stated that the councilors had copies of an e-mail with a proposed amendment to include all public buildings in the smoking ordinance. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend subsection (2)(k) of Section 6.230 of the proposed ordinance by removing the proposed deletion of the words 'publicly owned' and deleting the proposed phrase 'owned by the City,' both occurring in the first line of that subsection, deleting the remaining proposed revisions to subsection (2) and revising the lead sentence of subsection (2) accordingly. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Item C as amended. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: FY06-FYll Draft Capital Improvement Program Councilor Poling stated that no action would be taken on this item at Councilor Pap6's request. City Manager Taylor explained that this was the public hearing on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that had been discussed by the Budget Committee. He asked Patty Boyle, Senior Management Analyst for the Finance and Court Services Division of the Central Services Department to speak to the CIP. Ms. Boyle said the CIP was developed by compiling the capital projects found in adopted long-range plans and in the context of the City's long-range goals and policies. She further explained that the CIP was a planning document that provided policy-makers with a view of the anticipated capital investment in the City's infrastructure over the next six years and that it also acted as a basis for the proposed capital budget, though it did not authorize the spending of any funds. Ms. Boyle stated that copies of the CIP were posted to the Web site and were distributed to the chairs of all of the neighborhood associations, as well as the Planning Commission, the Budget Committee, and all interested parties. She noted that an opportunity to have a staff presentation on the CIP had been made to all neighborhood associations and opportunities to comment on the CIP were advertised in The Register- Guard and the Eugene Weekly. All public testimony was included in the council material packets for the current meeting. Ms. Boyle pointed out that both the Planning Commission and the Budget Committee had completed their review of the CIP and had recommended approval of it with amendments. She encouraged the council to identify any questions that might arise so that they could be adequately addressed prior to action on the item, now scheduled for March 7. Mr. Poling opened the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session Kevin Matthews, Box 1588, president of the Friends of Eugene and the Southeast Neighbors, said certainly "most of the stuff" in the CIP "bubbled up" from long-range plans, but asserted that some things had come up "rather suddenly" and were seemingly contradictory to such plans. He felt that what this meant was that it was simultaneously a long-range planning document which had marbleized in with it the projects and politics of the moment. He opined that the participation in the hearing was indicative of the level of public understanding about what was going on with the program. He said the council was the elected body that should provide a higher level filter on the community values. He averred that this was where the council should pay closer attention to the CIP. Mr. Matthews listed some of the projects that the Friends of Eugene did not think reflected community values and should not move forward in the CIP, as follows: B(6) City Hall, T(3) Patterson trench, P(6) Willamette River corridor acquisition (called "another subsidy for Triad at the riverfront"), and S(2) and (3) Greenhill and Royal node stormwater projects. He alleged that public sentiment supported an emphasis on acquisition rather than development in the Parks and Open Space CIP. He questioned the necessity of three street upgrade and capacity enhancements in his neighborhood. He also questioned the wisdom of including enhancements to the PeaceHealth Hilyard Street campus. He opined that without knowing what would happen there, nothing should be budgeted for it. Councilor Poling closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman pointed out that she had asked staff to draft a motion for amending the ordinance to adopt the CIP. Councilor Bettman agreed with Mr. Matthews' assertion that there was not enough citizen involvement in the CIP process. She did not believe it was a failure on the part of the public. She alleged it was a failure on the part of the City to engage the public in a meaningful way. She hoped the City would find a way to make the document more "comprehensive." She wanted people to understand what the City was thinking of buying if the conditions were right and to understand how it would impact their lives and neighborhoods. She called it "sad" and "counter to what the City was trying to achieve" in terms of broad public support for the work when no one showed up to testify on this. Councilor Taylor echoed Councilor Bettman's sentiments. She averred it was the City's job to find a way to get people involved. She also supported land acquisition over park development. City Manager Taylor said many of the ideas that were in the CIP came out of extensive public involvement processes, such as the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, the Stormwater Plan, and TransPlan. He recognized that it was a challenge to find ways to involve neighborhoods and individual citizens and attain the best possible public process. 4. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Providing For Withdrawal of Territories From the River Road Water District and the River Road Park and Recreation District, From the Santa Clara Water District, and From the Junction City Water Control District City Manager Taylor introduced Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner, and asked him to explain the parameters of this year's ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session Mr. Yeiter stated that this was an action required annually. He said a public hearing was required by State law before the tax assessor could shift tax revenue from the properties that had been annexed, from the special districts that were providing the services to the City. He noted that fire districts were automatically transferred. He explained that there were 22 annexations that required withdrawal from the special districts, all of them initiated by property owners for development purposes and all of them approved by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission (LCLGBC). Councilor Poling opened the public hearing. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, said he was a Eugene resident. He likened the piecemeal annexation of the River Road area to a "slow death by bleeding." He expressed appreciation for Councilor Papa's work with residents of the River Road/Santa Clara area. He asked what the transition team was charged to do. He wondered if the City would support the task force's efforts in good faith or whether the task force would become under funded and underutilized and if within two years the City would choose to only annex. He said David Reed with the transition team was trying to identify the heritage values in the area that were worth saving in order to inform a strategy of negotiated annexation. He thought the challenge to the City was that one arm of the City often did not know what the other was doing and staff decision- makers were driven by projects that needed to be completed, sometimes losing sight of the "big picture." He averred that the challenge was how to get along with area residents and how to negotiate in a fair way with the area. He wondered if the transition team' s work plan could be fully funded and whether negotiations of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with River Road Park District and the County Public Works should be ceased. He suggested postponement of the creation of the local improvement district on River Avenue. He thought an accountable and transparent process should be initiated for the proposed land swap for the Santa Clara Park. He recommended a moratorium on all new development in the area be enacted for two years in order for all of the issues to be resolved. Councilor Poling closed the public hearing. Councilor Poling ascertained that there were no objections to taking action at the present meeting. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4897, an ordinance providing for withdrawal of territories from special districts. Councilor Taylor acknowledged the frustration that some River Road/Santa Clara residents felt about the annexations, but wished to underscore that the present action was routine. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning the Filing of Rabies Vaccination Certificates; Adding Section 4.403 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section 4.990 of That Code; and Providing For an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor stated that the public hearing was for an ordinance that was recommended by the Lane Board of County Commissioners and had grown out of recommendations from the Lane County Animal Regulation Task Force. He asked Carol Pomes, Purchasing Manager, to speak to the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Ms. Pomes provided an overview of the ordinance. She stated that the County board had approved a rabies vaccination reporting requirement and the ordinance under consideration would provide for enforcement of this requirement within the city limits of the City of Eugene. She said data would be used to increase dog licensing compliance and dog licensing revenue. Councilor Poling opened the public hearing. Deanna Diehl, 1343 Taft Street, volunteer with the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA), called the ordinance a good idea. She worked at the animal shelter and had attended several of the task force meetings. She felt the task force had worked hard to come up with its report and recommendation. She supported the ordinance because it increased the LCARA revenue and the ability to collect it. She likened it to a user fee for parks. She felt a dog license was like an insurance policy that made sure a lost dog would be returned. Additionally, she expressed appreciation for the cattery. She shared a story of the rescue of a dying cat that was euthanized at the shelter rather than left to die on the street. She also wished to commend Barbara and Kylie for their work at the shelter. Cynthia Sinclair, 6825 F Street, Springfield, said she was a judge who heard dog bite cases in the Central Lane Justice Court. She was very aware of the pain and fear that goes on in a dog bite case. Presently, she explained, it was not possible to know for certain whether a dog had been vaccinated for rabies unless one'called every veterinarian in the County. She stated that, with the ordinance, not only would this data be available, it would contribute revenue to animal control, possibly freeing up some of the current funding for other areas of the City that were in need. She also felt that some funding could be funneled into the Low-Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic as well as into increasing kennel capacity so that dogs would not be euthanized simply to make room for more dogs. She related that she had served on the task force and that the group had worked through its contentiousness toward a result they could all agree upon. Rita Castillo, 6825 F Street, Springfield, advocated for adoption of the ordinance. She did not want people in Eugene to undergo the terror of not knowing whether a dog bite would cause rabies. She related that the largest objection to the ordinance she had heard in the task force was that it would generate more paper work. She did not think that a little paper work should stand in the way of public safety. She underscored that no jurisdiction that adopted such an ordinance had ever rescinded it. She called adoption of it "the right thing to do," adding that it would save money and lives. Janetta Overholser, 30300 Cottage Grove-Lorane Road, Cottage Grove, said she had served on the task force. She stated that rabies had been in Lane County, though only rarely. She related that several baby bats had tested positive for it the previous summer. She thought there was a definite possibility that cats and dogs could be bitten and the disease transmitted to them. She stressed that no one would want to wait over a weekend to find out whether a biting animal had been inoculated against rabies. She echoed the concern expressed about animals being euthanized because quarantined animals were taking up valuable kennel space. She noted, too, that dogs do not understand boundaries, so it was important for the City and County to have consistency in this regard. Roberta Boyden, 1568 Fairmount Boulevard, stated that she had been a veterinarian in Eugene for seven years and had served on the task force. She had worked in veterinary clinics in six states and this was the first state she had been in that did not have such a reporting mechanism for rabies vaccinations. She asserted that the ordinance under consideration was the norm and not the exception. She underscored that the threat of a rabies outbreak should be avoided at all costs. She noted she had lived in Maine during a rabies outbreak. She stated that it was beneficial to the community to know whether animals had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session vaccinated. She said her concerns regarding client confidentiality had been addressed in the County codes. She averred that increasing licensure would help lost dogs be returned to their owners. She hoped the information would not be used to enforce City and County limit laws unless it was shown that the number of animals threatened the health and safety of the animals. Scott Bartlett, 1445 East 21 st Avenue, asserted that every day, in thousands of communities, veterinarians routinely sent for triplicate copies of rabies vaccine records. He stated that he had been chairman of the task force. He noted that 30,000 dogs and cats had been euthanized over the previous 30 years. He said 83 percent of dogs in Lane County were not licensed as there was no systematic way to intersect with them to ensure licensure. He calculated that enactment of this ordinance would bring in approximately $257,000 in additional revenue. He suggested that some of this revenue be channeled into subsidies for the spaying and neutering of animals belonging to people with low incomes. He explained that the bottom tier of society was responsible for 60 percent of all euthanasia and impounds. He said while this issue did not have the political power or "sex appeal" that some issues did, it was still very important to take action to reduce animal euthanasia. Jack Dresser, 38131 McKenzie Highway, Springfield, scientist for the Oregon Research Institute, said there were 24 percent more pets in Lane County than there were households. He stated that humans had invited these animals to share their lives for 14,000 years and were obligated to take care of them. He related that his daughter had been attacked by dogs and it had been extremely beneficial to have immediate access to the dogs' veterinary records. He echoed the recommendation that some of the additional revenue generated by this ordinance should be used to subsidize spay and neuter services. He thought people would be more willing to pay the fees if they thought they were going for the benefit of animals and not just into the General Fund. He suggested that licenses be made more accessible, perhaps sold at convenience stores. Mary Ann Itolser, 2620 Cresta de Ruta Drive, called owning a pet a privilege and not a civil liberty. She stated that a pet owner had a responsibility to keep that pet healthy and happy. She said one had a community responsibility as well to prevent the spread of disease from one's pet to other animals and people and that the government had a responsibility to protect the public health. She related that she had witnessed a rabies outbreak in New York State in which there were many infected raccoons, some of which had bitten dogs. She noted that Canada had complained because some of the rabid raccoons had crossed the border. Tom Itolser, 2620 Cresta de Ruta Drive, related that he had recently visited an emergency room while in Los Angeles, California, because of a dog bite. He said California had strict laws about such reporting and it was determined immediately that the dog in question had not been vaccinated. He was forced to be vaccinated for rabies, a very unpleasant experience, but was pleased by how proactive the authorities were there. He expressed amazement that Lane County had an 80 percent failure rate for its licensing. Robert Itermann, 635 West 25th Avenue, supported the ordinance. He called it a "no-brainer" that the City would want to have accurate reporting. He noted that he and his wife, though not of great means, had a dog and licensed it as required by law. He was irked to hear that the majority of residents in Lane County did not do so. He related that he had produced several public service announcements for LCARA and had seen the pile of dead dogs and cats after routine euthanizations. He felt many of them could have been someone's pets. He said the ordinance would be a great first step in reuniting animals with their owners. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session Councilor Poling closed the public hearing. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for testifying. She was glad to support the ordinance. She felt animals in the City were underserved. She hoped more people would take advantage of licensing their dogs. Councilor Taylor said she loved her dog and would not consider having a dog that was not licensed. She related that some people were concerned that with access to more money animal control officers would do more patrolling and issue more tickets. She said her "big concern" was that animal control officers would drive around neighborhoods and this was not good for the environment and not a good use of money. Councilor Poling reiterated that the council was not prepared to take action until March 7. He asked if it would be possible to include language that would take five percent of the fee and place it into low-cost spay and neuter procedures. Ms. Pomes responded that the City operated the Low-Cost Spay and Neuter Clinic and that Lane County applied five percent of its license fees and the City put two percent of its licensing revenues into low-income certificates for spay and neuter services. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Motorized Transportation Devices and Motor Assisted Scooter Sales; Amending Sections 4.990, 5.010, and 5.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding new Sections 4.979 and 5.160 to that Code Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4892, an ordinance concerning motorized transportation devices and motor assisted scooter sales. Councilor Kelly wished to know the current park rules and whether it was a problem for mobility- impaired people, for which there was a broad exemption in the rules governing bicycle paths, to travel through a park to get to the bike path using a motorized transportation device. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to direct the City Manger to do a preliminary list of key transportation corridors that lack on-street bike lanes and thereby limit the mobility of motorized scooters. The list would be brought to the City Council with a rough scope of work, including rough dollar costs, to create such lanes. City Manager Taylor asked for clarification on what was meant by transportation corridors. Councilor Kelly replied that he used that terminology because that was the terminology he heard transportation planners use. He felt professionals who understood where people started out and tended to go would be able to conduct such an analysis. Councilor Poling expressed appreciation for the motion. He averred that there were people in the City who wanted to use alternate modes of transportation and the City of Eugene encouraged this. He indicated he would support it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Councilor Ortiz did not think it was the intent of the City Council to create hardships for people. While she did not condone the use of the motorized scooters because they were unsafe and helmets were not required, she felt some users rode such scooters because they could not afford a car and did not want to set them up for fines they could not afford to pay. Councilor Bettman supported the motion. She commented that 30 to 40 percent of the City land mass was paved and it was important to accommodate all modes of transportation on the streets. She wished the City would make a distinction between where it wanted its non-motorized vehicles to be, given that such a small portion of the right of way was designated for them. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 7. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Public Contracting; Adding Sections 2.1400, 2.1405, 2.1410, 2.1415, 2.1420, 2.1425, 2.1430, 2.1435, 2.1440, 2.1445, and 2,1450 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Sections 2.1200, 2.1205, 2.1210, 2.1215, 2.1220, 2.1225, 2.1230, 2.1235, 2.1240, 2.1245, 2.1250, and 2.1255 of that Code; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4896, an ordinance concerning public contracting. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for providing the list of differences from the old code to the new code. He asked, regarding packet page 208, what changes there were from the old code to the new code language regarding privately engineered public improvements (PEPI). City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that it did not change the instances in which the City would ask a private developer undertaking a PEPI to tag on a piece of work for the City. He clarified that the request could be made without going through the competitive solicitation process if the six conditions listed on pages 7 and 8 of the ordinance were met. Councilor Kelly wished to affirm, given that the code did not confer any budget authority, that the piece of the project paid for by the City would need to be already committed through capital budget funds and that, if not, it would have to come before the council as a supplemental budget piece. Mr. Lidz indicated this was so. He cited two instances, such as when a catch basin by a development needed repair or a street improvement was needed, under which this situation could occur. Councilor Bettman appreciated the new format. Regarding the assertion that specific provisions determined when the City could engage in an informal solicitation for bids, she asked how the City would monitor informal bids and ascertain there was no favoritism. Ms. Pomes replied that the informal solicitation process had different thresholds for different solicitations. She said there was still competition and it was required that at least three competitive quotes or proposals be submitted. She related that staff looked at various elements of the project, such as projected costs, and at market data for particular items to ensure it was within market range. She stressed that a multitude of factors were taken into consideration and it was conducted through the central staff of the PWD. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session Councilor Bettman reiterated her question and asserted that staff did not have a way to track smaller contracts over time. She averred that the same contractors were getting the bids most of the time. She predicted the City could find itself paying "$900 for a toilet seat." She wanted to know what was being saved through this process. She alleged that the City was not tracking the various contractors, how contracts played out in the long run, and whether it was saving money. Ms. Pomes assured her that staff did track the contracts that were issued to various contractors and had multiple reports that indicated the aggregate amounts issued to a particular contractor. She reiterated that quotes were solicited and proposals were publicly advertised. She underscored that the City hired contractors both inside and outside of the community and tapped into a multitude of tools. She said it was difficult to absolutely determine what money was being saved, given the variables, but staff did use project estimates, cost comparisons, costs to other agencies, market agencies and so on, to make comparisons in pricing and quotes on projects. Councilor Bettman said she was not talking about a specific cost per procurement. She wanted more monitoring. She thought the statements in the AIS that said the practices were "unlikely to promote favoritism" and would "probably save money" should be supported by fact. She advocated for looking at ongoing practices and how to monitor and review them so that the City could track how many contractors were actually bidding and getting contracts through the informal bidding process. She wanted a check and balance and a "clear feedback loop." City Manager Taylor indicated that clear documentation as to how this occurred could be provided. He said it would be a matter of providing the council at regular intervals with such analysis. He recognized her point, but noted that the ordinance sought to respond to legislative changes. Ms. Pomes reiterated that staff had a lot of reporting tools and did review the reports on contractors on a regular basis. She averred the competitive process in itself should produce better results than a process without the competition would. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session ATTACHMENT I MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall March 7, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported that the United Front trip to Washington, DC, was productive and there was good reason to believe that there would be funding for the Interstate 5/Beltline, bike path, and Delta Ponds projects. Ms. Bettman commented that Senator Floyd Prozanski had been criticized in the press for defending the rights of cities to participate in the selection of freight routes. She said that Senate Bill (SB) 496, the Forest Legacy Program, passed in the Senate and Senator Prozanski gave an excellent floor speech in support of the bill. She announced that Senator Prozanski and Governor Ted Kulongoski were conducting a public hearing in Cottage Grove on March 10, 2005, on SB 313 and SB 912 related to the metham- phetamine epidemic. Ms. Ortiz reported that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Task Force had been meeting and Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green had made public service announcements encouraging people to apply for the credit. She said the typical benefit to people who qualified was between $1,000 and $4,000 and that money tended to stay in the community. She invited councilors to attend the Bethel Weed and Seed dinner on March 14, 2005. She pointed out an article in The Register-Guard highlighting the accom- plishments of Fairfield Elementary School in the Bethel School District. Ms. Taylor congratulated Mayor Piercy on hosting the recent First Friday Art Walk. She announced that she would be in Washington, DC, in mid-March and would attend a meeting of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Task Force. She requested an accounting of parks in the southern part of the City that identified acreage and park type. She commented that problems related to panhandling were often caused by drivers who stopped to give panhandlers money. Mr. Pap6 urged support for the Forest Legacy legislation, SB 496. He expressed appreciation for the City's efforts in the Santa Clara/River Road area and the working group that had been formed. He inquired about the status of resident surveys. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that a survey related to issues associated with a community park was scheduled to be conducted in April 2005 and a more comprehensive survey addressing a broader range of issues would be conducted later in the year. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap6 announced that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) would meet on March 9, 2005, and there were a number of legislative issues to address. He invited councilors to attend. He said the committee met at 9 a.m. every Thursday with locations to be announced. He thanked Mayor Piercy for her efforts in Washington, DC, and expressed appreciation for all of the partner jurisdictions who participated in the trip. Mr. Kelly remarked that he was impressed with the work of the CCIGR during the current legislative session. He announced that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) was hosting an informal public outreach session on the issue of gender identity protection code revisions on March 14, 2005. City Manager Taylor noted that according to the Supreme Court's website the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) court case decision was likely to be announced on March 8, 2005, and that decision would have budgetary implications for jurisdictions. B. WORK SESSION: Possible Formation of a Fire District City Manager Taylor stated that in December 2003, the council had asked staff to study the issue of formation of a fire district and report back in a year. He introduced Fire Chief Tom Tallon to provide the report. Chief Tallon highlighted portions of a report presented to the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) that demonstrated thc challenges facing cities to provide essential services as a result of tax reform in the 1990s and thc proliferation of proposals to break up services into districts. He said the report pointed out that it could create long-term pressure on cities' revenues through property tax compression. He noted information in the agenda packet that indicated the City would lose approximately $80,000 in revenue from local option levies due to tax compression in 2005. Chief Tallon said that the City was guided by the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), which designated that fire and emergency service delivery was logically provided by cities. He said that thc Metro Plan would need to be amended, a process typically taking six to twelve months, to allow for a fire district. He reminded the council of a number of independent studies that had been conducted: Eugene was currently rated as a Class 2 city for purposes of property insurance by the Insurance Service Underwriters. A performance study funded by Springfield in 2002 recommended against forming a fire district, identified capacity and circumstances that implied a promise of cooperative efficiencies, and de- termined that the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department was a well-mn agency that provided important fire and pre-hospital emergency services to the community. · Standards of Cover identified level of service, deployment of resources, location of stations, training, prevention, and other measures. · An accreditation process currently being undergone by the department was concluding with a site visit in May 2005 to review 240 measurements upon which accreditation was based. Chief Tallon stated that he was unable to put together site visits to other departments for the council but MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 2 Work Session had surveyed the 17 largest fire departments in the state; 11 departments were municipal departments provided out of general fund governments like Eugene and six of the departments were fire districts. He said that typically, departments in jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 or more were delivered municipally like in Eugene, and rural areas with populations of 49,000 or less formed fire districts for better efficiencies and economies. He noted that the exceptions were the Tualatin Valley and Clackamas 10 fire districts, both of which were located in the metropolitan area around Portland. He said that Gresham had disbanded its fire department and was scheduled to vote on annexing into the Clackamas Fire District 10. He concluded with the observation that the City was in a good position to take no action regarding changes to the provision of emergency services. Mayor Piercy noted that there was an effort in the legislature to eliminate the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission to ensure that cities could not prevent the formation of special districts. Ms. Bettman said that legislation had been drafted but not yet introduced that would eliminate the boundary commission and another bill was being considered that would only remove the commission's authority with respect to public safety and library districts. She agreed with the staff recommendation regarding the possible formation of a fire district. Financial Analyst Larry Hill, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, said that compression was computed on a property-by-property basis and industrial property did not increase in value as quickly as other types of property. Much of the compression, where the assessed value approached the real market value, was occurring in industrial properties. He said that for most properties the average relationship between assessed value and real market value was approximately 80 percent. He explained that when taxes were $10 per $1,000 of real market value compression occurred and taxes on that property were reduced until the $10 cap was no longer exceeded. He noted that local option levies were affected first and then permanent levies were reduced. Ms. Bettman asked how a special district that only included the County would differ from the County, which had taxing authority. Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter explained that it was a legal difference that consisted of being able to exempt those costs from the base property tax and charge additional taxes for special district activities. Ms. Bettman expressed the opinion that because it was so much more expensive to provide services in rural areas, urban taxpayers would then be faced with either a diminished level of services or higher taxes. Mr. Kelly said he supported the staff recommendation to take no action. He commented that most people regarded police and fire as basic services provided by local government and there was no compelling evidence that a change in the current structure was desirable. He acknowledged the level of cooperation that existed among local fire departments. He expressed concern that a fire district governed by a five- member board would further confuse the public and increase the disconnect from decision- and policy- makers. He thanked Mr. Hill for his explanation of compression and its impact on the City. He asked if projections of the impact of compression in coming fiscal years were being done. Mr. Hill said that a model to anticipate compression in the future was being developed and he hoped that some results would be available during the council's budget discussions. In response to questions from Mr. Pap6, Chief Tallon said the survey of 17 fire departments addressed the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 3 Work Session cost and structure of service provision. The City of Gresham, because of the vote on fire district annexation, had published a significant amount of data about the general fund and fire district rates. He added that Springfield was not actively pursuing annexation into the Willakenzie Fire District and instead was looking at points of cooperation and collaboration with Eugene. Ms. Taylor agreed with the staff recommendation and preferred to retain local control and accountability. Ms. Ortiz said the department did a good job and she would continue to support its efforts. Ms. Bettman agreed that the department was excellent and the issue was not just about money and local control, it was also about training and quality of services. She said at a recent League of Oregon Cities conference, experts had indicated that fire districts were economical for small jurisdictions but when the population was above 20,000 to 30,000 the economy was lost. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to authorize City staff to lobby against any proposed legislation that would weaken or eliminate any of the powers or responsibilities of the Lane County Boundary Com- mission. Ms. Bettman said that the council would not meet again until April 2005 and a number of bills were likely to be introduced prior to that time; it would be good to have definitive council direction on those issues that could preempt local control. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about the process when the CCIGR existed to address legislative matters. He recommended that the matter be referred to the committee for consideration at its next meeting. He said the committee had already been given policy direction on the subject of preemption of local authority. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the City's Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser indicated the motion was a good idea and would provide staff with some guidance while the council was on break. He said the issue could be revisited by the council after its break and the CCIGR had a certain level of authority to act when there were time constraints and could even modify the council's recommendations. He said the issue related to the structure of government in the Metro Plan and the general structure had served the City well; he would support the motion to direct lobbying during the break and trust that the CCIGR would address any specific legislation that was introduced. Ms. Solomon stated that she would not support the motion and was not prepared to discuss the matter. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Solomon. He preferred to discuss the matter with Mr. Heuser present if the motion was based on his request. City Manager Taylor said that Mr. Heuser would be present at the regular meeting for the agenda item related to the CCIGR. Mayor Piercy suggested that the motion and discussion be deferred to the regular meeting following the work session when Mr. Heuser would be available. Ms. Bettman indicated she was willing to postpone the matter to the regular meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 4 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: Economic Development Committee Recommendation on an Enterprise Zone City Manager Taylor stated that the issue before the council was whether to submit an application for an enterprise zone before the April 25, 2005, submission deadline and if an application was submitted, what was the direction of the application. He introduced Denny Braud, staff with the Community Development Division. Ms. Taylor declared that based on the City's previous experience with an enterprise zone, it was wrong to act and more time should be allowed for public input as the community became aware of the concept. Ms. Taylor moved to postpone the item and conduct a public hearing. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the question before the council was whether an application for an enterprise zone should be made; the State might or might not approve the application. He asked if the enterprise zone would have a "claw back" provision to require a business to pay back the tax from which it was exempted if it was out of compliance. Mr. Braud said state statutes include a "claw back" provision that require a business that failed to meet its job creation obligations during the three-year period to repay the taxes from which it was exempted. As an example, he said that HMT Technology Corporation was required to repay a portion of its tax exemption under the City's previous enterprise zone. Mr. Kelly noted that Union Pacific Industrial Development was considering leasing property to tenants for rail-related uses such as a container facility and asked if that use would be eligible for enterprise tax exemption. Mr. Braud replied that it would, as the basic test was whether an operation served other businesses and a container facility would meet that test. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Ms. Ortiz's concerns regarding the inclusion of the railyard property within the enterprise zone until master planning around the railyard had occurred and noted that enterprise zone boundaries could be expanded at a later date to include that property and related eligible uses like a container facility, once a master plan was completed. Ms. Taylor asked if HMT had repaid taxes and reimbursed the City for infrastructure and staff time. Mr. Braud said that the statutes only addressed the enterprise zone tax exemption and HMT had repaid approximately $471,000 for the period in which the default occurred. Ms. Bettman asked if the "claw back" provision in State statutes enabled the local jurisdiction to request payback of taxes if the business defaulted. Mr. Braud replied that the provision enabled the tax assessor to collect taxes based on non-performance and payback was automatically required. In response to questions from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Braud said that the City's application would be competing with applications from Madras and Harrisburg. He said that job quality standards should be in place before the enterprise zone was created and if the City's application was successful, that date would be July 1, 2005. Ms. Bettman cited the proposed motion and noted that the Mayor's Committee on Economic Develop- ment's recommendation on community standards was very general. She commented that the standards MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 5 Work Session were important and should include a specific index for calculating a self-sufficient wage, benefits, and related items. She asked if the City could use expertise in the community, such as labor organizations and economists, to develop data for the standards. Mr. Braud said the statutes limited the types of conditions that could be attached to the tax exemption, but how the criteria were processed was up to the local jurisdiction. City Manager Taylor noted that the proposed motion would result in an application coming to the council on April 11, 2005, for a resolution but more time would be taken to develop community standards before July 1, 2005. Ms. Solomon asked if removal of the railyard from the enterprise zone boundary would cause problems with the requirement that the zone be contiguous. Mr. Braud said it was possible to remove the railyard property without compromising the contiguous nature of the zone. Mr. Pap6 remarked that concern over the previous enterprise zone revolved around Hynix Semiconduc- tor's receipt of benefits from the zone, but the fact that more than 80 local businesses benefited was overlooked. He asked what would make the City's application more competitive. Mr. Braud responded that the most compelling argument in favor of the application was the City's history; the previous enterprise zone was one of the most active in terms of the number of businesses that used it and the amount of investment that occurred in the zone. He added that one of the major approval criteria was the potential for new investment and the City would rate high in that respect. Mr. Pap~ asked if the community standards needed to be in place before the application was submitted. Mr. Braud said that the State had no role in approving whatever local criteria the City adopted and standards could be developed and adopted outside of the application process. Mr. Poling commented that an enterprise zone was a tool in the economic development tool box and he wanted the best tool possible. He encouraged the council to move forward with the application process and demonstrate to the State support by a majority of the council for an enterprise zone. He encouraged retention of the greenfields areas in the enterprise zone but was willing to support removal, including the railroad property, if it would result in a majority of the council supporting the application. He agreed that it was important to carefully consider the development of community standards and ensure that they were legally permissible and did not put the City at a disadvantage. He said that enterprise zones worked and cited the 80 business that received tax exemptions for three years but were now paying taxes in one year that made up for that. He said that Hynix tax payments now made up ten percent of the City's budget. Mr. Pryor compared the discussion to the layers of an onion with the first layer being whether to submit an application, the next layer to determine what should be included in the zone, and another layer to determine what the standards should be. He agreed that the dimensions and size of the zone and job standards were important considerations, but the first step was to decide to submit an enterprise zone application. He said that an enterprise zone was a useful economic development tool and one that was considered by businesses considering Eugene as a location. Ms. Ortiz applauded the council's discussion and said she could support an enterprise zone application if the railyard property was removed. Mayor Piercy stated that she could support an enterprise zone as a tool for growing business in the community, but it should be focused and targeted to improve wages and benefits and attract businesses that would be good community partners. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a recommendation for establishing j ob quality standards ap- plicable to enterprise zone development projects, and bring back a resolu- tion in support of submitting an application to the State of Oregon for designation of an enterprise zone in 2005, jointly sponsored with and supported by Lane County, with the boundary as proposed in Attachment B, minus the railroad property, of this agenda item. Projects would re- ceive a 75 percent tax exemption by right, and would qualify for 100 per- cent exemption by complying with the job quality standards. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the compromise that would probably result in a majority vote for a useful economic development tool. She said her opinion that enterprise zones were more costly to a community than the benefit received had not changed, but when a zone was targeted to offset economic distortions there was a definite benefit to the community. She said in this case, the economic distortion was the fact that the redevelopment of existing industrial land, infill, and development of brownfields was more expensive than development of greenfields. The City would be providing an incentive in order to intensify the uses in its industrial zone and help the businesses that existed there expand and add more jobs while at the same time maximizing the utilization of existing industrial land. She recognized the merit of Ms. Ortiz's suggestion to remove the railyard property given Mr. Braud's explanation of rail- related uses' eligibility for benefits. She said the motion addressed the wise use of limited resources. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks. He valued the council's spirit of collaboration and thanked Mr. Poling for identifying avenues for achieving compromise. He expressed frustration with the constraints the State placed on the City's ability to fine-tune the enterprise zone to fit community standards. He thought the proposal being considered would allow the council to focus on its growth management policies and target incentives to redevelopment and infill and job quality standards. He encouraged the involvement of the community in the development of standards and said he would support the motion. Ms. Taylor said the enterprise zone was totally wrong. She asked if environmental standards could be imposed. Mr. Braud said the Mayor's Economic Development Committee looked at a number of options for sustainability measures, but the State statutes did not allow for standards unrelated to job creation. Ms. Taylor said she preferred to wait for legislation that would allow a zone that was not geographical but rather provide incentives to local businesses other than manufacturing and that did not recruit large business that created a fiscal drain on the City. She said the need for more police and schools was based on the growth in population and she preferred to see the City focus on expansion, retention, relocation, and helping local businesses with those issues. She was not able to support the motion as stated. She said an enterprise zone was not fair to businesses in other parts of the community or who were not manufacturers. Mr. Poling reiterated that passing the motion would send a clear statement to the State about the council's commitment to the enterprise zone. If the application was not successful in this round, he said, it would make the next application process far easier. He noted that without the development in the enterprise zone the City would not have the additional tax base, and while he would prefer to see greenfields included in the boundary, he would support the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Solomon said she would support the motion but asked for clarification on the issue of the railyard property. She said the enterprise zone could be a potential incentive to redevelop the railyard and asked if the boundary could be expanded to include the railroad property if it was initially excluded. Mr. Braud said the boundary could be changed by council resolution and approval by the State. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, City Manager Taylor said that job standards would be developed after the resolution to approve an application submission before the April 25, 2005, deadline and before July 1, 2005, when the enterprise zone went into effect. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion by substituting Attachment A for Attachment B, minus the railroad yards. Mr. Pap6 said redevelopment of brownfields was a worthy goal, but he was concerned about the message sent by limiting the enterprise zone to brownfields. He said that the cost to redevelop brownfields was much higher than to develop greenfields and the zone boundary in Attachment A had been vetted by people involved in economic issues in the community. Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Kelly said there was no message that development was only wanted in brownfields; the message was that extra incentives would be provided for brownfield development. He argued that the large greenfield sites were the most desirable sites available because of the limited supply of buildable land and least in need of incentives. He said the incentives would help offset the greater expenses of developing brownfields. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks and said she intended to vote against the amendment for those reasons. If the amendment passed, she would vote against the main motion to create an enterprise zone if it included greenfields. She did not think it was strategic to provide tax breaks for development of premium sites. Mr. Poling asked if Attachment B, minus the railroad properties, included any greenfields. Mr. Braud said that there was some vacant ground with services and infrastructure, such as the Greenhill Technology Park, but those were infill opportunities, not greenfields. Mr. Pryor affirmed his desire to make the zone as effective a tool as it could be, but if obtaining the support of a majority of the council meant compromising on the boundary issue he was willing to support the original motion. Mr. Pap6 said he wanted to see greenfields included in the enterprise zone but realized that the boundary could be expanded at a later date. He asked if there were any limitations on the size of the zone. Mr. Braud replied that the statute placed limitation on the size but the City's proposed boundary was well below the size limits and afforded sufficient opportunity for future expansion as discussed. He said a boundary amendment would require resolutions from the City and the County and approval by the State; the process was relatively quick. Mr. Pap6 asked what percentage of actual land available was represented by the land removed from the zone boundary under the main motion. Mr. Braud said that the greenfields represented 786 acres of the 5,946 acres in the proposed boundary; the restricted boundary would include 5,160 acres. He referred to MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 8 Work Session material in the agenda packet that provided specifics about which property was "development ready" and which was "development constrained." Mr. Pap6 asked what percentage the 786 acres represented to the total available for development in Attachment B. Mr. Braud said that would depend on the definition of"available for development" and whether that included greenfields, property for sale or unoccupied, or other characteristics. He noted that an industrial lands study would be conducted that would collect that type of information. Ms. Ortiz stated that she would support the main motion. She emphasized the need for better-paying jobs that helped people achieve economic self-sufficiency by providing a viable alternative to public assistance. She hoped that those job standards would be addressed in the discussion of community standards. The motion to amend the main motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Pap6 and Ms. Solomon voting in favor. The main motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT J MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall March 7, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pap& Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed all those present. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy noted that 23 people had signed up for the Public Forum and asked them to be prepared to speak for only two minutes due to time constraints. She reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. George Victor Stathakis, 935 West 8th Avenue, asked the council to take time in considering the low- income housing project planned for the site adjacent to the WOW Hall. He advocated for allowing local talent to take over the Ridenour Building. He alleged that otherwise, out-of-town developers would receive local tax dollars to build the housing project. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, cited three projects that the draft Capital Improvement Program (CIP) listed in two places, along with proposed budget allocations. He hoped the money had not been allocated twice. He also commented that $29 million seemed a high projection for a new City Hall. Mr. Biggs said he lived in a node and enjoyed the ability to bicycle and shop where he needed. He hoped all future nodes would also provide ready access to shopping and easy access to services by bicycle. Terry Froemming, 2886 Bailey Lane, representing the Harlow Neighbors Association (I-INA), stated that the HNA provided a packet of information for the councilors. He noted that it included a colored map of a proposed future node. He explained that an area, printed in red, delineated the proposed Chase Village Medical Park, consisting of two buildings totaling 110,000 square feet and 600 parking spaces. He opposed the proposal because it would not be compatible with residential uses. He predicted that it would become a traffic area to be avoided by day and a lifeless dead zone by night. He asked the council to help the neighborhood by opposing the medical park. Marian Spath, 533 Covey Lane, stated that she lived in the Chase Gardens node. She related that she had lived in a node in Seattle in which she could easily walk to the post office, grocery store, and more. She said that one of the reasons she had purchased her home in 2003 was that the neighborhood had been promised a grocery store. Now, she explained, the land originally planned for such a store was to become a large medical complex with parking. She urged the council to consider the neighborhood's plea for a grocery outlet. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session Jack Radabaugh, 1361 Luella Street, chair of the Harlow Neighbors Node Committee, said the neighborhood had been trying to get a grocery store in the area for a long time. He recalled his participation in the nodal planning process several years earlier. He reiterated the neighborhood's objection to the medical complex. He underscored that a grocery store would improve the living conditions for all of the area residents, who now drove four miles for services. He conveyed the committee's recommendation that the council at least consider a compromise on the conflicting proposals. John Saemann, 1775 Adkins Street, provided testimony from Ray Wolfe. He said Mr. Wolfe lived at 1473 Luella Street. He explained that Mr. Wolfe had served on the City Council Advisory Committee on the West Eugene Enterprise Zone in 1997 and had written the minority report. He felt that many of the problems from 1997 still existed. He relayed Mr. Wolfe's assertion that the cost effectiveness of an Enterprise Zone was still questionable. He urged the council to study the review document he had submitted on Mr. Wolfe's behalf. He related that Ed Whitlaw of Eco Northwest had stated that Eugene's problems were due more to growth than from a lack of it. He asked that Dr. Whitlaw be consulted again. He submitted Mr. Wolfe's testimony in writing. Kate Perle, 4740 Wendover Street, spoke on behalf of the Santa Clara Community Organization Executive Board. She shared a letter from the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) that registered the organization's opposition to "what has come to be called the McDougal Land Swap." She reported that two meetings with alleged attendance of nearly 100 people had resulted in a motion to oppose the land swap. This motion was passed. Jake Pippin, 88465 Periwinkle Road, Springfield, thanked the council for listening. He said he wished to bring teen suicides to the attention of the community. He explained that Thurston High School had mounted a play called Sleepwalk by William Mastrosimone, who also wrote Bang Bang You're Dead, in which he played the lead. He thanked Mayor Piercy in particular for attending the opening night. He stated that the play sought to get the word out that suicide was an emerging issue and that suicide took more teen lives than any natural causes. He called this a staggering figure, noting that the goal of the play was to raise awareness. He shared that the school production had been invited to perform at the Washington Thespian Festival, the Oregon State Festival, and to the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh, Scotland. Nathan Miller, 4565 Holly Street, Springfield, said the effect the play Sleepwalk had on audience members was profound. He noted that a special performance had been put on for the students of Thurston High School and kept the audience spellbound for the entire show. He shared his excitement in being able to go to Scotland and participate in the Fringe Festival. He said a benefit concert featuring Paul Biondi was being held on March 10, to help the students get to Scotland. He hoped to get the word out to everyone. Paul J. Biondi, PO Box 609, Veneta, shared his enthusiasm for the Thurston High School students' production of Sleepwalk. He explained that he had put together the March 10 benefit, featuring two bands. Local television station KVAL helped with publicity. He related that other fundraising events were being planned, including a dinner event with a silent auction planned for April. He stated that students had raised $20,000, but needed to raise $60,000. He conveyed his deep pride in this "little school from Oregon" that would be representing the United States in Scotland and in the students for taking on an issue that needed attention. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session Ellen Ityman, 3863 Dorchester Lane, spoke regarding the survey on urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion. She related that feedback thus far indicated that the survey was too long and that some people felt it was biased in favor of the expansion. She said a Santa Clara resident wanted to be called for the survey and was told she would not be contacted because her name was on a sign-up sheet at one of the City-sponsored park meetings. She wondered why this person would be excluded. She shared that a person indicated that he was called for the survey and was told the upper age limit was 65 years of age and that he was too old. Ms. Hyman reported that the Santa Clara Committee for Sensible Parks and Open Spaces distributed its surveys as an insert in The Register-Guard. Out of 466 respondents, 96 percent wanted the City to maintain the UGB and supported the purchase of park land within the UGB. She stated that the committee drafted an alternative plan, now submitted to the SCCO for a vote, and hoped to be able to submit the plan to the City Council at its next meeting. David C. Woods, 953 West 8th Avenue, echoed Mr. Stathakis' comments regarding development adjacent to the WOW Hall. He questioned the wisdom of giving a developer "free property and tax breaks" when others could develop the property and keep it on the tax rolls. He wondered what guarantee there would be that the legality of the WOW Hall's agreement with the developers and future residents of the building would not be overturned in court. He asked why a "perfectly sound" building that insulated the WOW Hall from noise should be destroyed. He requested that a series of public meetings be held to increase public input in this process. Mort Ityman, 3683 Dorchester Lane, indicated that a traffic engineer from the City of Eugene spoke at the last meeting of the SCCO. He did not feel the engineer was very helpful. He said people asked questions about narrow streets with parking on both sides and about the bottle-neck at River Road, River Avenue, and Beltline Road. He also heard some questions regarding the seeming lack of timing between traffic lights. He noted that the traffic engineer was quick to point out that some parts of that area were governed by the City and some by the County, and suggested that some problems needed more attention from public safety officers than from traffic engineers. He asked that someone on the council make a motion to obtain information on the traffic issues and frustrations in Santa Clara. He hoped this would be addressed before traffic was exacerbated by a UGB expansion. Ethen Perkins, 2410 Monroe Street, testified on the proposed Enterprise Zone. He desired the biological diversity of the zone to be maintained. He said he had been studying the Fender's Blue Butterfly and Kincaid Lupine habitat issues and how to define and set up criteria for them to conduct habitat restoration. He hoped that, in the course of setting up enterprise zones, potential habitats for these endangered organisms would be identified and incentives provided to conduct restoration within the zone. He said that he had personally benefited from an enterprise zone and thought such a process was completely feasible. He suggested extending enterprise zones to those who were willing to set aside some land to enhance habitat for endangered species. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, was puzzled about why the Santa Clara survey did not include the opinions of older persons. He attributed this to social engineering. He recommended the councilors read an essay called The Curse of the Creative Class, available on line. Mr. Vishanoff asked why the council was not organizing a public process for the proposed basketball arena. He thought a project of that magnitude warranted attention. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street, #307, called the City of Eugene "Enron 'r' Us." He sang a song about poor people not having enough money. He said the City should provide more money to support the arts. He noted that people were not allowed to sleep for more than 30 minutes at the Eugene Public Library and registered his objection to that rule. Scott Bartlett, 1445 East 21st Avenue, thanked the City Council for its continuing effort to keep a hospital in South Eugene. Mr. Bartlett supported the ordinance that would require rabies vaccination reporting. He said it would create an expanded database and bring in additional revenue. He reported that the Lane Board of County Commissioners allocated five percent of its licensing revenue for subsidized spay and neuter services for the pets of low-income people, pointing out that they often do not have the funds for such a procedure. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris Street, stated her opposition to the mixed-use development planned to be built next to the WOW Hall. She thought it would concentrate too many people too close to the WOW Hall and the uses were bound to conflict. She alleged that a "prominent Eugene architect who was president- elect of the City Club" was quoted as saying she did not think the site was appropriate for low-income housing. She asserted that the City was intent on having a "really big project" and sought proposals with maximum density housing as a principle criterion. She related that she had, as an experiment, called seven WOW Hall members and asked them how they felt about this development and, according to her, they were all opposed. She said she was genuinely concerned about this development. She thought it would be more expensive to build the apartments on that site, that the apartments were not designed for families with children, and that the people who need the help would not get it. She found no other HUD housing projects that were built next to a music hall. She predicted the WOW Hall would remain subject to police action, even after noise attenuation measures were included in the building. Sharon Olson, 277 North Grand Street, supported the Santa Clara community park land swap proposal. She saw considerable benefits in the proposal, which she felt would provide a park that would be a "great asset" to the community while providing a link in the Ridgeline Trail in the Laurel Hill Valley. She recognized there were concerns that needed to be addressed regarding annexation and the potential increase in traffic. But she questioned whether there was a reasonable amount of park land within the UGB and whether there were other land owners willing to sell their land in Santa Clara. She also wondered if the City would lose the chance to buy the Laurel Hill site. She believed the City and the Santa Clara area could work together and continue to evaluate the costs and benefits of this option and others. Charles Peters, 2435 Potter Street, a member of the Community Center for the Performing Arts (CCPA, also known as the WOW Hall), wished to apologize for the alleged campaign of misinformation by two of the members, intended to derail the proposed low-income housing project. He recognized that the council had heard all of the arguments, both both for and against the proposal, and believed the council would make the right decision. He thought the process could have been enhanced by having a public hearing earlier in the process. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, speaking on behalf of the Railroad Pollution Coalition, advocated for a public planning process for the Union Pacific rail yards. He also wished to attain the best possible clean- up process for the pollution emanating from the rail yards. He hoped the City would support economic redevelopment that would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. He said the HOPES Conference, scheduled for April 8 - 10 at the University of Oregon, included a design charette for future MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session redevelopment of the rail yards. He noted that the coalition was hosting a number of community meetings that sought to inform the public and to gather ideas. He announced that a larger meeting would be held on March 30 at the Red Cross office, located at 862 Bethel Drive, and invited the council to join the process and brainstorm with area residents. He stated that the results from the design charette would be announced on April 8 at 5 p.m., and that Mayor Piercy would be one of the judges. Carol McBrian, 1875 West 15th Avenue, said she learned from parenting and teaching that it was easier to set up a situation that would avoid disaster than it was to remedy disaster. She opined that building low-income housing next to the WOW Hall was a recipe for disaster. She thought the concerts at the WOW Hall could cause conflicts with people living next door. She recommended holding a public hearing and gathering input on development of the adjacent property so that future problems could be avoided. David Itelton, 878 Glory Drive, noted that he prepared the economic analysis on the proposed Santa Clara land swap for the City, though he was speaking for himself before the council. He felt opponents of the swap used inflammatory language, such as calling it the "McDougal land swap." He hoped that the decision on whether to undertake the swap could be made on a more rational basis. He commented that thousands of people moved into the neighborhood and needed park space. He said the City needed more community park land now and needed to make investments when it could. He underscored that the community would continue to grow and the area was going to continue to develop with or without the land swap. He supported making investments to increase the quality of life. He thought the City had three choices at present: 1) to go forward with the land swap and get a free park; 2) to condemn the land followed by a legal court battle; or 3) to not do anything and development would ultimately occur with no park at all. In response to concerns that the change in UGB for a development would set a precedent, he hoped it would set a precedent and that every land owner who wanted to bring land into the UGB would be willing to donate land for parks and schools. Jonathan Pincus, 590 West 12th Avenue, #5, wished to clarify his comments at the last Public Forum. He recalled that he advocated for holding a public hearing or a format for examining the West 8th Avenue project and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan using more than one criterion. He wished to underscore that he had no financial interest in the building. He only advised the people submitting one proposal regarding the process of assessing the structural integrity of the Ridenour Building and its viability for renovation. He felt it was a well-documented process that included a code search, examination of all of the previous building permits, and a walk-through by the City's Plan Check Supervisor. Regarding the latter, he related that the supervisor had suggested that no further seismic upgrades or fire safety upgrades would be necessary. He felt the information submitted had been very accurate and asked that the council take into consideration all of the possibilities. Ruth Wren, 1285 McLean Boulevard, requested a public hearing for the planned development on West 8th Avenue. She opined it was obvious that building an apartment building next to a music hall would create conflict. She predicted the response to the conflict could be to curtail activity at the WOW Hall. She did not think that the planned noise mitigation would be enough. She commented that young people needed a place like the WOW Hall to gather. Wren Davidson, 2295 Riverview Street, said she lived in Eugene for 25 years and her child had grown up sleeping under the bleachers of the WOW Hall while she listened to music. She felt that the 8th Avenue development was on a "collision course" with the music hall. She said the WOW Hall had been a part of the community for a long time and asked that there be a public hearing on the planned development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session Continuing, Ms. Davidson shared that she heard Dr. Samuel Epstein, author of Cancer Gate, speak at the Environmental Law Conference. She supported the Toxics Right-to-Know Law, stating that cancer is epidemic and the City of Eugene needed to set an example for the rest of the country. Paul Nicholson, 1855 East 28th Avenue, wished to second comments regarding the WOW Hall, hoping to preserve its function. Mr. Nicholson related that he served on the Council Committee for Economic Development in 1992. He recalled that the committee recommended substantive standards for accountability, such as producing stable family-wage jobs and encouraging ~ompanies that had minimal environmental effect. He felt the Enterprise Zone, as proposed, failed miserably to meet those standards. He thought it had no possibility for accountability, as it was largely governed by the State. He said the City of Eugene had a "sad track record" as promoters of economic development. He asked where the 1,000 jobs were that were promised by the University of Oregon when the City authorized the development of the Riverfront Research Park. He asked what happened to the promised "downtown renaissance." Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and opened the floor for councilor comments and questions. Councilor Pap6 commended the "great testimony." He especially appreciated the young people who were participating in the play, Sleepwalk. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, City Manager Taylor said there were no plans to sell the Union Pacific rail yards, to his knowledge. Councilor Pap~ requested that staff contact Union Pacific and ask what plans it had for the rail yards. He commented that there had been many rumors. Councilor Pap6 recalled that he took dance lessons as a six-year-old at the WOW Hall. He said the function of the WOW Hall had changed over time and might continue to change over time. He felt the future was open to speculation. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone for taking time to testify. He wished to clarify that the West 8th Avenue project was being constructed by developers who develop only local low-income housing. He explained that while the City created 1,300 units of low-income housing since the late 1980s, there was a need for 5,000 units. He said that if the new development proceeded, it would add 70 units of low-income housing. In response to the assertion that the benefits would not go to the people who need it most, he underscored that federal law mandated low-income living units could only be rented to people who made 41 percent to 57 percent of an area's median income. Councilor Kelly applauded the drama students who were taking Sleepwalk to the Fringe Festival. He wished them luck and indicated that he would attend the benefit. Councilor Kelly, in response to the assertion that someone was rejected for the survey based on age, said he wished to ascertain that the survey in question had yet to be undertaken. City Manager Taylor said he did not know the answer at present, but would find out the status of the survey for the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session Councilor Ortiz thanked the City Council for the work it had done on the Enterprise Zone. She felt it was a good exercise in give-and-take. She also thanked the students who came from Thurston High School. She said that while she would not be able to attend the benefit, she would post the flyer about it at her place of employment. Councilor Poling thanked the representatives of the Harlow Neighbors Association for their testimony on the Chase Node. He observed that some of the councilors were not fully aware of the magnitude of what was being developed. Councilor Poling wished to make people aware of his intention to create spay and neuter vouchers for companion animals of low-income people, should the ordinance requiring the filing of rabies vaccine certificates be adopted. Councilor Taylor thanked those who testified. She conveyed her regrets that testimony was restricted to two minutes. Councilor Taylor believed there should be a public hearing on anything that is significant or controversial and, therefore, supported holding a public hearing on the planned development for West 8th Avenue. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda B. Adoption of Resolution 4827 Adopting an Inflationary Adjustment of Systems Development Charges for Local Wastewater System, Stormwater System, and Transportation System; Superseding Administrative Order 58-04-04-F; and Amending Resolution No. 4740 C. Adoption of Resolution 4828 Amending Eugene City Council Operating Agreements and Repealing Resolution Number 4812 Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman asked to pull Item C. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item C passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to add the words to the Eugene City Council Operating Agreements 'or designated alternate' after the phrase 'formally appointed official City Council representative' to the second sentence of the first paragraph in Section 9.03; and in the next paragraph, the second sentence to add the words 'if possible' at the beginning of the sentence. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session 3. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4829 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004, and Ending June 30, 2005 Kitty Murdoch, Budget Manager, briefly reviewed the proposed supplemental budget. She explained that it requested approximately $1 million of expenditure authority. She noted that it included the revenue brought about by the two-cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to adopt Resolution 4829 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004, and ending June 30, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: FY06-FYll Draft Capital Improvement Program Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to adopt the FY06-FY11 Capital Improvement Program incorporating the recommendations forwarded by the Budget Committee and staff. Councilor Pap6 said he had been concerned about the money spent on the River House remodel during the previous year and, as such, he did not think more money should be spent on it at this point. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to remove the River House expansion project from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Councilor Kelly echoed Councilor Pap6's concerns regarding the project, but indicated he would not support removing it from the CIP, as it was an unfunded project and not scheduled to be undertaken until 2010. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Pap6 and Solomon voting in favor. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the FY06-FY11 Capital Improvement Program to modify the description of the FY06 Patterson Street Underpass project to indicate that the project is contingent on the sale of the Eugene Water & Electric Board property to McKenzie-Willamette/Triad Medical Group and its commitment to construct an $85 million hospital on the property. Councilor Bettman averred it was a good idea to document that this project was contingent upon the commitment to build an $85 million hospital at the site. Councilor Pryor indicated he would abstain from the vote on the amendment due to a potential conflict-of- interest. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session In response to Councilor Pap6, City Manager Taylor stated that the amendment was iterated in the agreement with the hospital and because of this he was amenable to it. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0; Councilor Pryor abstaining. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the Policy Guidelines on page 8 of the Capital Improvement Program to add the following three policies: "7. Funding sources that have been identified for a specific project and approved with the adoption of the Capital Improvement Program shall remain the funding source for that project unless a specific exception is directed by the council. "8. Flexible funding available from federal, State, County, and local sources that is eligible will be used to fund maintenance and preservation of existing capital infrastructure, unless a specific exception is directed by the council. "9. New capital projects that are located within the Eugene City limits will be reviewed by the Eugene City Council before inclusion into any regional or multi- jurisdictional project list or plan." Councilor Bettman stated that this amendment was necessary in order for her to vote in favor of the CIP. She reiterated her concerns regarding the Chad Drive extension, which was originally proposed to be funded by assessments and systems development charges (SDCs) but ultimately had become a project to be paid for by assessments and Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funding. She wished to be assured that the source of funding for a project would remain the same and if it would be changed, that the City Council would be given the opportunity to approve or deny the change. She reiterated that the council had committed to fund maintenance and preservation projects first. Councilor Kelly enthusiastically supported the amendment. He complimented Councilor Bettman for taking a different approach. He felt that the CIP was a challenging and voluminous document and it was easy to miss something unusual. He said the amendment would not affect projects that were underway. He likened it to taking a "yellow highlighter" and underlining certain projects in order to flag them specifically for the City Council. Councilor Solomon asked City Manager Taylor to speak to the amendment. City Manager Taylor said staff had not received the proposed language in advance of the meeting and would like the opportunity to review the amendment and understand its implications. He was uncertain what the exact meaning of 'flexible' was under proposed Policy 8. He stated that the amendment seemed to be aimed at the City's financial goals and policies and reiterated that he wished to have more time to explore its implications. Councilor Solomon concurred. She preferred to have a lengthier conversation on the proposed amendment. City Manager Taylor cited, as an example, a potential change in funding sources that could occur as a result of the United Front lobby efforts. He asked how this would be handled, should Councilor Bettman's policy changes be approved. He emphasized that these issues would be better dealt with in the context of policies and not as addenda to the CIP on the final night of its adoption. Councilor Pap6 appreciated the intent of the motion. He agreed that the CIP was a complex document. He thought it deserved more attention from the Budget Committee and the City Council. He commented that he assumed some staff time and planning had gone into the numbers included with the projects. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session City Manager Taylor underscored that almost every project in the CIP included extensive public planning processes; ideas for projects were never weighed for the first time in the CIP. Councilor Pap6 alleged that there were several projects that the council had not seen before. He asked that a work session be held on how the council would want to work through the draft CIP in the future. Regarding Councilor Bettman's amendment, Councilor Pap6 said he assumed she referred to transportation-related capital improvements. He asked if it was necessary to pass the CIP at the present meeting. City Manager Taylor responded that, while it was not urgent that the council pass the CIP on this night, he hoped it would pass. He felt the amendment as proposed was worthy of further discussion, but that it was related to the City's financial goals and policies and not the CIP. He stressed that this was the last meeting until April 11 and the draft budget was slated to be proposed on April 25. He said it would be difficult to make recommendations without an adopted CIP and council direction on some of the projects for FY06. Councilor Bettman indicated she would not support the CIP because it was a "moving target" and she did not know what was really in it and how it was to be funded. She did not see her amendment as an obstacle because the City Manager already had a projection of what would be included in the capital budget. She suggested he put the projection into the proposed budget and then the council could make changes as necessary. Councilor Bettman affirmed that Councilor Pap6 was correct in assuming that she intended to refer to transportation infrastructure in proposed Policy 8. Continuing, Councilor Bettman said her original approach was a project-specific approach. She had been prepared to propose that STP-U money be removed from the Chad Drive extension and the Monroe/Friendly Bikeway be authorized but realized her real concern was that there was a lack of council policy direction in the document. She asserted that while the City Manager said projects in the CIP were based on other plans and policies, when she had worked with other staff they indicated that the projects were drawn from the CIP. She felt she was unable to "get in there" and have an influence on the decisions. She was amenable to postponement of the discussion. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to insert the word 'transportation' before the word 'infrastructure' in Policy 8. The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Kelly supported the amendment. He felt the amendment informed the CIP and would provide the council with the opportunity to weigh in on changes in funding for the projects. He said if he perceived that the amendment sought to change the financial goals and policies he would not support it. City Manager Taylor read the following from the bottom of the proposed amendment: "In the event that the council adopts the above motion, the City Manager and finance staff will bring to the Budget Committee in the normal course amendments to the City's Financial Management Goals and Policies to incorporate the above." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session City Manager Taylor expressed confusion, given what was being said. He asked if the flexible funding cited in proposed Policy 8 meant that General Funds should be allocated for preservation and maintenance. He said he did not understand how this policy would inform the budget or what the words were intended to do in bringing projects forward. He reiterated that he was not opposed to the amendments but wished for more time to consider them and consult with staff. Councilor Kelly surmised that flexible funding meant funding from sources such as STP-U. Councilor Taylor remarked that it seemed to her that the amendments clarified that the councilors should be more involved in the CIP. She felt language regarding flexible funding was clear. Councilor Pryor said on the surface the motion looked sound as it dealt with good communication and good accountability. He thought two conversations were transpiring; one on whether the council should adopt the CIP and its content and the other on what the financial goals and policies should be that impact the CIP. He opined that the latter was a much larger discussion as it created a larger policy impact. He asked if delaying adoption of the CIP would incur a hardship. City Manager Taylor responded that the CIP had been before the Budget Committee and the City Council three times. He hoped that the council could act on the CIP. He shared that he had been impressed with the City's financial management goals and policies and the seriousness with which the City followed them, as demonstrated by the City's sound financial position that showed up in bond ratings and in the annual audits. He reiterated that he needed more time to consider the amendment, as proposed. In response to a question from Councilor Pryor, City Manager Taylor stated that adoption of the current CIP primarily affected FY06. He reiterated that the council adopted a full CIP every two years. Councilor Pryor extrapolated from this that he could vote to approve the CIP at the present meeting knowing that the CIP impacted FY06 and that there were concerns and issues around future years that needed further consideration and more council "check-ins" on the CIP. City Manager Taylor added that the council would vote on the specific capital improvements projects recommended for FY06 and FY07 through the budget process. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to table the amendment and main motion to April 11. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Solomon voting in opposition. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Filing of Rabies Vaccination Certificates; Adding Section 4.403 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section 4.990 of That Code; and Providing For an Immediate Effective Date Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4895, an ordinance concerning the filing of rabies vaccination certificates. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Councilor Taylor moved to amend Section 1 of the Ordinance to add the following new Subsection (5) to Section 4.403: (5) None of the information provided under this section shall be used by the City for purposes of requiring a license to be obtained under Section 4.400 of the Eugene Code, 1971, or to take any other enforcement action requiring someone to give up ownership of dogs based solely on the number of dogs owned. The motion died for lack of a second. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy called for a five-minute break. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Hazardous Substance User Fees; Amending Sections 3.692 and 3.694 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Section 3.695 to that Code Councilor Kelly asked the indulgence of the Council President so that he could offer a substitute motion. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council request that the Toxics Board: 1) Study and send back to City Council a refined list of business categories for addition to the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. Such a study should include (but not be limited to) consideration of testimony at the February 14, 2005, hearing, consultation with potentially affected businesses, and inclusion of only those categories that contain some businesses that use more than 2,640 pounds of hazardous substances per year and thus would be reporting. 2) Provide to the City Council an estimate of impact on income and expenses of the Toxics Right-to-Know Program due to the refined list of business categories. 3) Explore opportunities to coordinate the reporting of the current Toxics Right- to-Know program and any expansion with other toxics reporting required by State and federal agencies. Councilor Kelly felt, after the testimony, that he was not prepared to "vote up or down" the ordinance. He did not think the ordinance reduced the fee inequity enough to make that its main thrust. He supported taking a look at businesses that produce large amounts of hazardous substances but were not in the current program. He wished to be responsive to testimony and ask the Toxics Board to improve and vet the proposal. Councilor Bettman indicated her support for the motion. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment that would include language that underscored the council's continued commitment to pursue legislative changes at the State level. Councilor Kelly accepted the friendly amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session Councilor Solomon asked, in the spirit of compromise, that the council ask the City Manager and not the Toxics Board to come back to the council with a process that would arrive at the answers the council sought. She pointed out the ordinance that was proposed for action was the result of the Toxics Board process. She opined that the Toxics Board was an artificially balanced body, as demonstrated by its frequent near-tie votes. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Councilor Kelly's motion to substitute 'City Manager' for the 'Toxics Board.' Councilor Poling asked if the Toxics Board had, under the City Charter, the authority to take that action. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that the council had the authority to ask the Toxics Board to undertake the work dictated in Councilor Kelly's motion. City Manager Taylor stated, given that the Toxics Board members were experts on the subject matter, that any process he would bring back to the council would include consultation with the board in an official way. Councilor Pryor said he would not support any Toxics Program expansion that was not based on some sort of authoritative resources or empirical data. He did not think merely taking input from public testimony and affected businesses provided enough information on which to base a decision. He wanted more complete and precise data before he could consider the ordinance. Councilor Kelly opposed Councilor Solomon's amendment because he thought that the City Manager would be part of the information loop regardless. He preferred to leave the Toxics Board in charge. He said the Toxics Board had the benefit of the public testimony and that his motion would give them the directive to consult with affected businesses. He thought the Toxics Board also benefited from the work of its lead staff, Glen Potter, management analyst for the Eugene Fire Department. He added that, ultimately, it was up to the City Council to decide whether an expansion of the program should occur. Mr. Klein affirmed, in response to Councilor Bettman, that the Toxics Board was created by City Charter. Councilor Bettman called the Toxics Board the "most balanced committee that exists within the City organization." She felt the City benefited from the debate that the Toxics Board had and also from the expertise of the people at the table. She indicated she would not support the amendment. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Pap6, Solomon, and Poling voting in favor. Councilor Solomon asked how she could be assured that the Toxics Board would not be the only board reviewing data and weighing in on which businesses should report. City Manager Taylor responded that it was the preference of the City Council that any item that came before the council had a recommendation from the City Manager. Councilor Poling expressed reservations about the Toxics Board but felt that to move forward he would have to support Councilor Kelly's motion. He agreed with Councilor Pryor regarding a need for more empirical data in order to expand the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the City Council for public hearing and action, an ordinance imposing 2005 Toxics Right-to-Know Program fees calculated on the same basis as in 2004. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 7. ACTION: Approval of HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funding for West 8th Avenue Housing Project City Manager Taylor asked that, given that there had been much discussion over the course of many months, Planning and Development Department Grants Manager Linda Dawson provide a brief overview of the project. Ms. Dawson shared her excitement in being able to bring a "great proposal" that met low-income housing, downtown, and community goals. She explained that the $13 million proposal was supported by 8th Avenue area neighbors and was arrived at collaboratively by the Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation and the WOW Hall. She said the agenda item summary (AIS) provided a detailed report on how the developer had been selected, adding that there had also been additional communication, emails and news stories. She said the site was purchased with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2004 and was offered for development. She stated that the Allocations Subcommittee reviewed four proposals and made its recommendation to the Housing Policy Board (HPB), which then conducted a public hearing. She noted that the public hearing had been well-attended. She reported that after six hours of public meetings, the HPB unanimously recommended the Metro project. Ms. Dawson shared a rendering of the design. She opined that the design fit well with the block on which it was to be sited and with the WOW Hall. She related that Housing and Urban Development (HUD) completed a study of noise levels, the third such analysis undertaken in the process, and all of the readings were well within allowable noise levels. She pointed out that staff provided the councilors a report on the noise attenuation measures proposed for the WOW Hall. Ms. Dawson further explained that the council approval of the project would set the developer up to approach the State to seek four percent tax credit funding, which was a process that would begin in the spring. If not successful, she said they would seek the nine percent tax credits in the fall. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to approve the use of HOME funds for the WestTown on 8th project and the sale of the tax lot to the WOW Hall as recommended by the Housing Policy Board and described in this briefing statement. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to add that a public hearing should be held on this item. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session City Manager Taylor expressed concern that a delay could jeopardize the project's ability to access loan funds. Ms. Dawson concurred, adding that the sooner Metro Affordable Housing received a local decision the sooner it could apply for the tax credits. Councilor Pap~ conveyed his respect for the process by which the HPB had chosen this project. He asked Ms. Dawson to highlight the process for the council. Ms. Dawson reviewed the process, explaining that once the site was purchased, the Allocations Subcommittee set the criteria for the Request for Proposals (RFP) and put out the RFP in the fall of 2004. Of the four proposals submitted, two included housing, one proposed to use the existing building, and the last was from the Community Center for the Performing Arts (CCPA) for the lot behind the WOW Hall building. She related that the subcommittee had spoken with representatives of all four proposals and had recommended the Metro project. She said the proposal went to the HPB which, as required by grant regulations, held a public hearing. She stated that discussion subsequent to the public hearing had resulted in unanimous support for the recommendation before the City Council. Councilor Taylor averred that there was never anything wrong with transparent government. She supported holding another public hearing. Councilor Bettman appreciated the amendment, but felt due to the timeframe a delay could jeopardize the project and because of this she could not support it. She thought the project had received much more scrutiny than such a project usually received. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Ortiz and Taylor voting in favor. Councilor Bettman commented that all low-income housing in the City had been built with public assistance. She wished to inform the public that low-income housing would not be built without such assistance. She stressed that the City made an effort to disperse such housing around the City. She acknowledged that it was more expensive to build in the downtown area, but pointed out that living in the downtown area made life easier for low-income people. She believed the WOW Hall would continue to function as a small performing arts venue, adding that it was a valued entity within the community. Councilor Kelly thanked the WOW Hall, its back lot committee, and the Metro Affordable Housing people for their collaborative effort. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for putting the effort into the project. She appreciated that there were many opportunities for public process. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session 8. ACTION: Ratification of Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Actions of February 11, 2005 Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to ratify the actions of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as set forth in the minutes of February 11, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to authorize City staff to lobby against any proposed legislation that would weaken or eliminate any of the powers and responsibilities of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Councilor Bettman said this would direct staff to take a proactive stance with the legislature should it propose legislation to eliminate the boundary commission, as had been suggested might happen. Councilor Solomon was unclear about the function of the boundary commission. She wanted more information about possible pending legislature, such as whether there was a bill on the table. She noted that Lane County was the last county in the State that still retained a boundary commission. City Manager Taylor asked Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser to speak to the issue. Mr. Heuser explained that there were no known bills that specifically sought to abolish the boundary commission. However, he thought the likelihood of such a bill being introduced was great. He thought it was in the best interest of the City to preserve the status quo on this subject. Councilor Pap6 felt there could be many issues on the horizon and the council should not try to pull bills into the Council Chamber and out of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) process. He said he would be more inclined to be proactive if legislation was imminent, but given that this was not the case, he did not feel the need to take it on at the present time. Mr. Heuser stated that the deadline for new bills to be introduced was by 5 p.m. on the present date. He said the legislature would work through the "logjam" of bills and then he would have a greater sense of what bills the City should be aware of. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to substitute for Councilor Bettman's motion a motion that dictated that such concerns be handled through the CCIGR process. Councilor Bettman asked if there was a difference in the strength of lobbying efforts that were only approved by the CCIGR as opposed to those receiving council approval. Mr. Heuser replied that there was not. Councilor Bettman withdrew her motion. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to authorize City staff to lobby against any proposed legislation that would weaken or eliminate any of the powers of the City with respect to the formation or establishment of any special district whose territory would overlap land within the boundaries of the City or the urban growth boundary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 16 Regular Session Councilor Bettman said this would put the council's weight behind this stand. She noted the council did not support pursuing special districts, but the legislation would limit the authority of the City or a special district to object to a County service district. She called it a "preemption" of City authority to provide its own services. Councilor Kelly agreed that any special districts that could be formed involving any portion of Eugene should require City Council attention. In response to a clarifying question from Councilor Pap6, Mr. Heuser said Councilor Bettman was referring to Legislative Concept 2237, which might or might not be introduced as a bill. He thought it very possible that one of the legislators could "drop it." Councilor Pap6 reiterated that unless there was urgency to the items it should follow the normal path through the CCIGR. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Kelly voting in favor. 9. ACTION: Adoption of City Council 2004-06 Priority Issues Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to adopt the City Council's priority issues for 2004-06. Councilor Kelly expressed delight with the work done at the goal-setting session to come up with eight priority goals. He wished to clarify that the priorities met with approval with the support of seven out of nine present (Mayor Piercy had an equal vote). He asked the City Manager if the next step was for staff to take the council's brainstorming and combine it with their own in order to provide the City Council with draft proposals for the next steps. City Manager Taylor responded in the affirmative. Councilor Taylor asked if the priorities would guide budget strategies. City Manager Taylor responded that many of the priorities were multi-year strategies, and would certainly guide the budget for FY07. Councilor Taylor was happy that the council chose to prioritize the neighborhood initiative, arts in the outdoors and the restaffing of Fire Station 9. She expressed disappointment, however, that tax reform had not received a greater priority in the council goal-setting process. Councilor Pap6 wished for the priorities to be expedited and put into place as soon as possible. He added that he appreciated the council's work. He said he wished the priorities included strategies for increasing employment in the community. Mayor Piercy also shared her satisfaction with the group's process. She wished to remind the council that it agreed to look again at the wording of the council's vision and goals.. Councilor Bettman reiterated, for the public's benefit, that the goals were misstated in The Register- Guard. She clarified that the first goal was supposed to be that the City sought to launch a neighborhood initiative which included strategies for improving the quality of life. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 17 Regular Session Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 18 Regular Session ATTACHMENT K MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber--City Hall March 9, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to reconsider to authorize City staff to lobby against any proposed legislation that would weaken or eliminate any of the powers of the City with respect to the formation or establishment of any special district whose territory would overlap land within the boundaries of the City or its UGB. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Taylor voting yes, and Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, 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. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the City Council refer this matter to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) as there was no immediate action required. Ms. Bettman pointed out that a council motion that opposed a particular position on special districts sent a strong message to the State Legislature, as it was its position to take the cities out of the process of determining whether special districts occur. Mr. Pap6 reasoned that if the issue required immediate attention, the council could take a pro-active position. However, he pointed out that a hurhed process was not necessary in this particular case as the legislature has yet to form a committee to debate the issue. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Taylor voting no, and Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting yes. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. A. WORK SESSION: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and International City Managers Association (ICMA) Report on Selected Police Operations City Manager Dennis Taylor quoted a conclusion of the report about to be presented: "Out of crisis comes opportunity." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 1 Work Session City Manager Taylor explained that the entire community was affected by the recent actions of two police officers who devastated the reputation of the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He explained that the ultimate goal of the City was to restore the level of confidence and trust between the department and the community it served. City Manager Taylor opined that the report provided a solid roadmap to achieve that goal. He went on to note that the report concludes that the department has some problems but was fundamentally sound. City Manager Taylor reported he had directed the Police Chief and Human Resource and Risk Services Director to provide his office with an action plan and timeline to implement the recommendations contained in the report by May 1. In turn, he reported that the plan will be incorporated into the ongoing work of the Police Commission, which will include input from community partners and the public. In conclusion, City Manager Taylor voiced his hope that the City will commit itself to making the investment necessary to restore the integrity of and instill a sense of trust and confidence in the EPD. City Manager Taylor introduced Mosi Kitwana, Director, Research and Development of the ICMA. Mr. Kitwana voiced his appreciation to the council for inviting him and his colleagues to present the report. He stated that the entire focus of ICMA was to improve communities through management, specifically to provide a roadmap to improve police community relations and police department management. Mr. Kitwana concluded that PERF was a partner in the report with a focus strictly on the EPD management. Mr. Kitwana formally presented the Management Review of the Eugene Police Department to City Manager Taylor, who in turn presented it to Mayor Piercy. Mr. Kitwana proceeded to introduce the team involved in this creation of the report: ICMA Team Dr. Gayle A. H. Fisher Stewart, Team Leader, Private Consultant Leonard A. Matarese, Commissioner of Human Resources/City of Buffalo, NY Rodney C. Brown, CEO, Public Safety Liability Management, Inc. Dave Mora, City Manager, City of Salinas, CA (not present) PERF Team Dr. Tory Caeti, Director of Management Services Tony Narr, Director Senior Management Institute for Police Dr. Gayle A. H. Fisher Stewart voiced her appreciation to all individuals who assisted the team with this project, particularly the citizens of Eugene and Dawna Miller, Executive Assistant to the City Manager. She stressed that without the assistance of those individuals, the report could not have moved forward. Dr. Fisher Stewart referred to IV. ISSUES, outlined on pages 13 through 15 of the report. She reiterated that fundamentally, the City of Eugene has a sound police department; however, there were some problems, not unlike all police departments throughout the United States, and a few individuals have cast disrespect over the entire department. Dr. Fisher Stewart referred to II. Methodology, as noted on pages 3 through 6 of the report, the methods that were utilized to create the report: MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 2 Work Session · focus groups · personal interviews · phone interviews · document review · City Council and Police Commission meetings · media and other news releases · toll-free telephone line for citizens to express their views about the department and offer recommendations Dr. Fisher Stewart stated there were 57 recommendations (must do) and 12 advisories (reminders) listed in the report. She said these components were in three broad categories: Police/Community Relations, Governance, and Police Management Procedures and Practices. She noted that ICMA was responsible for the former two categories; PERF was responsible for the latter. Dr. Fisher Stewart referred to previous recommendations that were the outcome of a 1997 study of the EPD and its practices and were listed on pages 9 and 10 of the report. She pointed out that almost all of these recommendations continue to be valid today. Dr. Fisher Stewart questioned if the current report would have been necessary if those recommendations had been implemented earlier. Dr. Fisher Stewart referred to the over-arching recommendation that was listed on page 16 of the report: The review team strongly recommends that the City of Eugene contract this effort to someone from outside the City whose sole job is to oversee this transformation process. Dr. Fisher Stewart strongly emphasized the fact that the team did not receive input from a critical mass of the people of Eugene as it formed its conclusions and noted it was vital as the process moves forward that input from the "grass roots" of the community be tapped. Dr. Fisher Stewart pointed to the Mayor's one- on-one meetings and the Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission forums as formats which were adept in bringing people into the process. She stressed that there needs to be a concerted effort to provide an opportunity for community members to be heard and responded to, and to ensure that facts were put out to the community-at-large. Dr. Fisher Stewart pointed out that much of the information received from the community were perceptions. Dr. Fisher Stewart stated that the City needed to determine community expectations for community policing and fully implement that model. She conceded that community policing was difficult and must be tailored to Eugene. Dr. Fisher Stewart also stressed that transparency must be achieved within the community policing model. Dr. Fisher Stewart stated that the report recommended an external review board be implemented and that it not become another bureaucratic layer. She said that with the implementation of such a board, resources must be available to process complaints on a timely basis so as not to create additional problems and ineffectiveness. Dr. Fisher Stewart said that the complaint process should also be less threatening than it currently was, and she referred to the following statement which appears on page 21, Recommendation No. 5 of the report: The department routinely checks the police records of the people with whom we have contact, including people who file complaints. Ifa police officer has contact with you and is aware of a warrant, he/she is legally compelled to arrest you. However, we do not want this to prevent you from giving us feedback. If you have an outstanding warrant, please clear it with the Court. She opined that MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 3 Work Session such a statement can have a negative response from the community and therefore the team suggested it be removed from the EPD website. Dr. Fisher Stewart turned to the strategic plan component. She noted that a strategic plan was critical in managing change and forecasting needs. Dr. Fisher Stewart encouraged the EPD and the City Council to develop an integrated/multi-use strategic plan that will serve as a living document. In conclusion, Dr. Fisher Stewart stated that the City needed to ensure that the Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission were in line with policy that points to the managerial framework of the City. She noted that there was a perception within the community that those bodies were too involved in the management of the EPD as opposed to acting as an advisory body. Dr. Tory Caeti acknowledged the access the EPD provided to the team as it went about its work and specifically thanked Captain Steve Swenson for his participation and cooperation. Dr. Caeti noted that many of the recommendations put forth by the team have already been implemented by the City and the EPD. In reference to police management, Dr. Caeti stated that it was critical to update the Hobson Report and review current allocation levels within the City. Dr. Caeti spoke of an overarching recommendation, recruitment, training, and selection, which requires a budgetary investment to ensure the City attracted first-rate individuals to the department. He noted that municipalities achieve excellent results when candidates seek them out rather than the other way around. Dr. Caeti turned to training practices and revealed that employees of the EPD consistently requested a greater investment in supervisory training. He noted there were myriad training academies throughout the country that could be utilized to foster leadership dimensions. Dr. Caeti referred to the complaint process. He noted that timelines had been inconsistent in the past; however, he acknowledged that the procedures have now been improved. Dr. Caeti said "transparency" within that process was crucial in order to communicate clear and concise facts to the community. He further remarked that internal transparency was also vital to achieve a healthy department and opined that Chief Lehner was working to ensure that goal. Dr. Caeti referred to the security of EPD records and voiced his understanding that there was now limited access to those records and they do not now leave the Records Office. Dr. Caeti spoke about leadership. He said that leadership needs to be fostered from the moment of hire into the academy so that as officers were put into positions of authority, that authority will be used appropriately. Dr. Caeti stressed that all police departments need a clear mission, clear values, and an integration of ethics training to groom and retain true leadership. Dr. Caeti turned to the benefits of community policing and the side effects of the mission expansion that occurs with such a program, especially at the rank of sergeant. He explained that sergeants invariable have less ability to be in the field to supervise officer activity and provide feedback when there was a community policing model in force. Dr. Caeti also referred to performance evaluations and opined that in order to make evaluations effective, field supervisors need to be present in the field. He shared that input MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 4 Work Session from the EPD revealed that intemat responsibilities along with commitments to community organizations curtail that key element to effective policing. Consequently, Dr. Caeti announced that the report recommends a watch commander position be reestablished for the late-night hours; additionally, the department should make a concerted effort to put the sergeants back out in the field. Dr. Caeti turned to human resource issues such as discipline, performance evaluations, promotions, transfers, and internal affairs. He said the general recommendation crafted by the team spelled out the need for "redefinition" and "refinement" of the relationship between the EPD and the human resource function. Dr. Caeti noted that several steps had already been implemented to clarify the process; however, it must also be well-defined prior to the recruitment, training, selection, and discipline processes. In addition, he stated that the evaluation process needed to feed back into the promotional process and in general be utilized in a more effective way. In conclusion, Dr. Caeti turned once again to the complaint process and recognized the changes that have occurred, i.e., all complaints were now tracked. He explained that tracking provides a paper trail which reveals patterns of officer conduct. Dr. Caeti stated that the team recommended (1) that the Internal Affairs Unit be led by a captain-level officer, (2) that all investigative staff receive comprehensive training on how to conduct investigations, and (3) that the process be completely transparent to the EPD and the City. Mayor Piercy thanked the presenters for an excellent presentation and called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly referred to the Action Plan and questioned the Police Commission's role in that plan. City Manager Taylor explained that the commission was currently conducting a comprehensive analysis of implementing an external review board and that report is due later in the year. Mr. Kelly questioned if the Police Commission and/or the Human Rights Commission will be involved in the implementation of the recommendations. Leonard Matarese replied that policy must be driven by the City Council and it was up to that body to determine what role the two commissions will play in this process. He stressed that the council was the final decision-maker with regard to all City policies. Mr. Pap6 referred to page 13 of the report, Issue No. 1, which stated the EPD was fundamentally sound and that the current problems were easily correctable. Mr. Matarese indicated that the EPD was one of the best departments in the United States, and the "crisis" referred to was one of expectations. He went on to say that the team was impressed that the council and the community have taken such a key interest in improving the level of performance within the EPD. Mr. Pap6 remarked that the term "crisis" may not have been the best choice of words when writing this report. Mr. Pap6 voiced his concern that the City's job descriptions may not be accurate and additionally that all City employees may not be receiving annual performance reviews. He opined that if there was improve- ment to be made in those areas, it should be done quickly to ensure this critical management practice was well-instilled within all departments. Mayor Piercy spoke to the council's strategic goals, which listed this particular goal as a priority. Ms. Bettman observed the amount of work that was before the council as it responded to this report. She spoke to the "crisis" that was only relevant to the expectations of the community and questioned what the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 5 Work Session characteristics of a department should be to attract excellent candidates. Tony Narr responded that the entire recruitment initiative must be one that fully informed the public what the department has to offer. He conceded that such a plan required a budget and a business plan to attract the finest candidates. Mr. Narr spoke of the exemplary plan that has been implemented by the Lakewood, Colorado Police Department. He said that the recruitment process required that all candidates possess a college degree and due to the careful selective process, it was a more attractive department to seek out. Mr. Narr shared that of the approximately 200 officers hired by that department, 56 have gone on to be police chiefs in other municipalities Ms. Bettman spoke of the recent criminal activity that has occurred within the department and questioned how this activity occurred. Dr. Caeti responded that the team was not able to determine if these unfortunate actions could have been stalled earlier in the process as there was not one reasonable answer for an individual to do these acts over a period of time and not be discovered. He pointed out that invariably when an officer was in the field, he or she was alone. Dr. Caeti stressed that corruption was not an element of the EPD; however, he conceded that field supervision may not have revealed this practice. He opined that in-car cameras can offset such activity, early-warning systems can reveal trends, and the building of the culture of integrity in the recruitment/training processes was key. In conclusion, Dr. Caeti stated that fostering potential candidates at an early age within the school systems was also important. Mr. Narr spoke to the rise in popularity of early warning systems. He explained that in a non-disciplinary way, this system was a measure of officer trends and over a period of time can flag the need for supervi- sory assistance to an officer. Ms. Bettman revealed that the Police Commission was currently discussing the possible implementation of such a system. Mr. Pryor referred to the report and observed that the recommendations were a beginning for the council and the community. He noted that 48 recommendations were operational to the EPD, and the first 9 recommendations were policy-related and the responsibility of the council. Mr. Pryor stressed that a strategic plan will provide the basis for departments to build their own plans. Mr. Poling thanked the team for its exemplary effort and also the community for its willingness to participate in the project. He also thanked the officers of the department for their openness and willing- ness to improve the image of the EPD. Mr. Poling stressed that the problems within the department were caused by a few officers which unfortunately tainted the entire department. He noted that the council, the City Manager, the Police Chief, and the Police Commission now have the tools to move forward to address the issues at hand. Ms. Ortiz thanked all participants who helped create the report. She referred to the recommendations put forth in 1997 and voiced her disappointment that they were not acted upon. Ms. Ortiz questioned if the City be in the position it was in today had they been implemented. She voiced her commitment to the recommendations that were now before the council. Ms. Ortiz also voiced her concern that the standardi- zation of evaluations has not occurred throughout the City. City Manager Taylor conceded that the work before this body was daunting but will be accomplished. He said that the issues of the EPD deserve a high-priority level of community, City Council, and management attention and the report provided the foundation to take on this responsibility. He stressed that the council "owned" this issue and now has the opportunity to move forward to a culture of integrity. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed that the EPD was fundamentally sound and complimented Chief Lehner for the work he has accomplished in his short tenure; however, he opined that the problems within the department go beyond a few individuals. He stressed that the policy recommendations before the council must be taken seriously; however, he pointed out that when the council has attempted to address department issues in the past, it was discouraged with the reasoning that such concerns were operational and not the council's concern. Mr. Kelly asked if other jurisdictions can be studied to ascertain if adopted City Council policy provided a framework for a department to operate on. Mr. Matarese responded that the City Manager can provide the council with the information requested. He referred to the point posed by Mr. Kelly and noted that the City Council, meeting as a body, can certainly ask specific questions about the operations of a department and expect to receive a reply. Mr. Matarese shared that City Manager Taylor expected to be held accountable for implementation of the council's policies and procedures and would not obi ect to such questions. Mr. Matarese added that there was a misconception within the community as to how the council/manager form of government operated, and stressed it was the responsibility of the council to ask such questions. He stressed, however, that council members cannot act individually in such a responsible role with department heads and subordinates. Mr. Matarese reiterated that the council needs to "step up to the plate" with more regularity and ask the hard questions that need to be asked to ascertain that the administration was accomplishing the policies laid out. Mr. Kelly concurred that additional community input was critical to this process. He pointed out, however, that some community members will not come forward if they do not feel their concerns will be heard and responded to. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly stated that the recommendation to hire an independent consultant was critical to the process and requested that this component be addressed within the budget process. Mr. Pap6 referred to the comments made by Mr. Pryor and noted that the City was "all in this together." He pointed out however that the council cannot operate the EPD; rather, it delegates such authority. At the same time, Mr. Pap6 stressed it is the council that is accountable for the performance of the EPD and, therefore, implementation of the recommendations the council deemed justified was critical. City Manager Taylor concurred and reiterated that the governance of this community rests with elected officials and the leadership team and assured that progress will be made towards the implementation of the recommendations. Ms. Taylor questioned if a performance auditor may have prevented some of the recent problems which occurred within the EPD. Dr. Caeti opined that an auditor who observes the day-to-day operations does not assure that performance issues will be detected. He noted that the key to a successful policy was the action and follow up that occurs and the culture of integrity that exists within a department. Ms. Taylor observed that the auditor model was Portland is making good progress. Ms. Taylor referred to Recommendation 5 - Consider eliminating the statement that the department routinely checks the police records of the people with whom we have contact, including people who file complaints. She voiced concern with that recommendation, pointing out that many individuals who have problems with the EPD have not led a perfect life and do not want to take a chance that their records will be checked. Ms. Taylor suggested that the practice itself be eliminated. Mr. Narr pointed out that it was the responsibility of police officers to bring people to justice when circumstances require that. He elaborated that the team did not believe it was appropriate to include a warning that may discourage an MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 7 Work Session individual from filing of a complaint. Ms. Bettman voiced her appreciation that a work session to discuss the recommendations in detail will be scheduled. She questioned if the community will have an opportunity to respond to the report. City Manager Taylor revealed that the report was on the EPD's Web site; additionally, action steps will include more specific strategies for community involvement and outreach. Ms. Bettman encouraged the City Manager to schedule a public hearing on the report during the month of April. The City Manager agreed to this request. Ms. Bettman voiced her approval that the upcoming strategic plan be overseen by an outside contractor and endorsed the recommendation that the EPD and the City hire an auditor to review resource issues. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend the work session by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Poling asked for a breakdown of the recommendations as follows: those that have been addressed, those in the process of being addressed, and those which require major attention. City Manager Taylor agreed that a "first impression" report can be provided to the council at its April 11 meeting. Mr. Pryor agreed that the council must own the entire report. Mr. Pap6 asked if the work of the Police Commission will dovetail with the actions taken by the council. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the report encompasses only a small portion of the issues associated with an affective, professional-standard accountability system that the Police Commission was currently analyzing. Chief Lehner reported that the strategic planning process currently underway was timed to coincide with several events. He said that the conclusions of the Police Commission's work that will be completed in mid- to late-summer or early-fall will provide for a planning process which will be delivered to the public in draft form and ultimately in final form to coincide with the 2007 budget process. Chief Lehner reported that the action plan he will deliver to the City Manager on May 1 will include compo- nents (such as an evaluation component) of the strategic plan which were subject to budget processes. Mayor Piercy thanked the team once again for its exemplary effort in providing this report. She turned to the community members and reiterated the commitment on the part of all parties to act upon this report. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 2005 Page 8 Work Session