Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of MinutesEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2A 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 April 11, 2005, Work Session and April 11, 2005, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. April 11, 2005, Work Session B. April 11, 2005, City Council Meeting 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\M050509\S0505092A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 11, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling congratulated the 13 Eugene Police Department officers who graduated from the Regional Police Academy last week and who would soon be on the street. Mr. Poling welcomed the Oregon National Guard's 2nd Battalion home from Iraq, noting most members were based locally. He thanked them for their efforts in Iraq. Mr. Poling said that the Oregon Department of Transportation's I-105 project was now underway, resulting in major congestion. He offered the following Web sites and phone numbers for more information: www.keepusmoving.info and Commuter Solutions at 682-6213. Mr. Poling said construc- tion information was available by calling 984-8484. He asked residents to be patient during construction as the result would be a good thing for the community. Mr. Poling reported that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission was holding a hearing on its fiscal year (FY) 2004-2006 budget at 7 p.m. on April 26, 2005, at the Springfield Council Chamber. Mr. Poling said that construction on the Bus Rapid Transit system in Eugene should commence in mid- April at the Eugene Station and continue eastward. Mr. Poling reported that the Lane Workforce Partnership awarded a $120,000 contract to the Lane County Department of Youth Services to help at least 30 young people develop workforce readiness skills, academic improvement, computer skills, and employability. Ms. Taylor thanked Johnny Medlin of the Parks and Open Space Division for providing her with an inventory of Eugene parks. She said the information indicated there was no excess of parks in south Eugene; rather, they were somewhat lacking in that area. Ms. Taylor acknowledged that south Eugene had more natural resource lands than some other parts of the community, but she believed that such areas should be preserved where they existed. She cited the Willamette Greenway, West Eugene wetlands, and south hills forest as examples. Ms. Taylor asked that the council be given the same privileges as other community members to sit in on MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 1 Work Session the interviews of the candidates for the position of Planning Director. She hoped the council would get a chance to discuss the qualifications that councilors would like to see the new director have. Ms. Taylor noted a complaint she received from the Eugene Garden Club, a nonprofit organization, which was concerned about the $18,000 alley improvement assessment the club must pay. She hoped there was a way the City could waive the assessment for the club. Ms. Taylor was distressed that the memoranda the council received on the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development indicated the council voted 7:1 to accept the report, which it made it sound as though the council adopted the recommendations. She said it was merely good manners to accept the report. Ms. Taylor noted that Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority was seeking a new director, and invited suggestions. Mr. Kelly wished departing Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle well in his new position in Kansas City. Mr. Kelly conveyed his thoughts about the hiring of a new, permanent planning director. He favored an open community process as proposed by City Manager Dennis Taylor. He said that applicants would have different strengths; some would be more focused on the administrative side of the job, while others would be more visionary. Mr. Kelly believed Eugene needed a visionary director who could clearly articulate the council's visions and goals for the community from a planning standpoint. He quoted speakers at a recent American Institute of Planning Conference, who suggested that planners must push the public to think beyond today's problems and issues to consider what the public would want in ten to twenty years, and that it was increasingly important for planners to look beyond land use and consider social, cultural, and economic factors. The speakers indicated more civic engagement was required. Mr. Kelly believed the new planning director should strongly identify with the general idea of growth management, and the adopted growth management policies should resonate with that individual. He suggested that because the manager planned a deliberative and slow process, a work session be scheduled on the topic of the future of the Planning and Development Department and the future planning director. Mr. Pap~ welcomed members of the council back from spring break. Mr. Pap6 said he attended a UTRACK meeting regarding passenger rail on March 18. At that time, he spoke with Tom Milligan, passenger rail manager for the Union Pacific Railroad, who indicated the company had no plans to change its use of the rail yards it owned in Eugene. In fact, the company was considering increasing their use. He cautioned the council against spending time and energy planning for the future use of the rail yards if they were not available in the near term. Mr. Pap6 also welcomed back the members of the National Guard. Mr. Pap6 thanked Mayor Piercy for participating in the recent Arbor Day Ceremony. Mr. Pap6 indicated his intent to ask the council to discuss House Bill 3301, a bill related to the formation of special districts considered recently by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Speaking to Mr. Pap6's comments about the rail yards, Ms. Ortiz believed residents in her ward only wanted the railroad to be a good neighbor. Ms. Ortiz debriefed the council on the most recent Human Services Commission (HSC) and Police Commission meetings, reporting that the HSC heard an update on budget issues from three service providers. She had been very impressed with how the allocated money was being spent. The Police Commission had debriefed the International City Manager's Association and Police Executive Research Forum reports, and she anticipated that conversation would continue. Ms. Ortiz also congratulated the graduating members of the police academy. She was been impressed with the diverse, mature group that had been hired. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mayor Piercy, Ms. Solomon, Chief Bob Lehner, Mr. Pap6, and Mr. Pryor for their attendance at the Bethel Weed and Seed dinner held on March 14. She expressed pride in the work that had been done and the money that had been brought into the community to serve youth as a result of the Weed and Seed effort. She reported that she and Ms. Solomon agreed to work together to keep the public safety station in Bethel open as much as possible. Ms. Ortiz said that she, Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor, and Chief Lehner participated with other Lane County officials in a community conversation on race that occurred on March 12, which was taped by KEZI. She said a copy of the tape was on file in the Human Rights Program Office. Ms. Ortiz noted her recent attendance at the Community Development Block Grant Celebration. Ms. Bettman asked that a work session be scheduled to allow the council to give input on into the qualities it would like to see in a new Planning and Development Department director. She asked City Manager Taylor to use the hiring process as an opportunity to consider the possibility of splitting the department in two, a Planning Department and a Permit and Information/Development Department. She thought the two functions were very different, and the City could realize some important community objectives if it separated them. She believed it was counterintuitive to have the development and planning functions housed together in the same department. Ms. Bettman reported that the council would hold a public hearing on April 25 at 7:30 p.m. on the report the City Council received from the International City Management Association and Police Executives Research Forum. She noted the document was available on the City's Web site. Ms. Bettman reported she visited the Seattle Office of Public Accountability and interviewed its executive director and two members of the civilian review board, which had been very interesting. She learned a great deal, and offered to write a memorandum regarding her visit. Mr. Pryor said he attended the most recent meeting of the Lane Metro Partnership, which was about to embark on an end-of-the year assessment that would include a progress report and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the director and board, which could affect the next budget. He understood that there were some local business expansion and start-ups occurring. Mr. Pryor said the next meeting of the partnership would be a joint meeting with the Lane Workforce Partnership on April 28. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor reported he attended the March meeting of the McKenzie Watershed Council and heard a very interesting report on bull trout research in the McKenzie basin. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Mayor Piercy made a presentation to the House Committee on Trade and Economic Development when it recently held a hearing in Eugene regarding two measures under consideration at the State legislature and the general economic situation in Lane County. Ms. Solomon said that the Bethel Public Safety Station had been housed in its new location for a full year, and its use had increased since that move. She said the council could expect her and Ms. Ortiz to press to secure ongoing funding for the station after the Weed and Seed grant expired. Ms. Solomon reported that the Housing Policy Board had agreed that the City of Eugene would go out for a Request for Proposals for a property located at Royal Avenue and Danebo Road. Mayor Piercy said she recently attended a "That's My Farmer" event at the First Congregational Church, where the congregation was encouraged to support local farmers by signing up for food box programs. Ms. Bettman indicated her intent to ask the council to consider House Bill 2608, a bill recently considered by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations regarding the need for proof of citizenship for a person to secure a driver's license. Ms. Taylor noted that the Farmers Market had recently reopened after the winter hiatus and it was wonderful. City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked the councilors for their willingness to go to Salem on short notice to testify before the State Legislature about bills of interest to Eugene. City Manager Taylor noted the importance of the Community Development Block Grants to Eugene and acknowledged the celebration that had occurred. B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance to Adopt the Modifications to the Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission Intergovernmental Agreement; and A Resolution to Approve Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Man- agement Commission The council was joined for the item by Wastewater Director Peter Ruffler, City Attorney Glenn Klein, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Director Susan Smith, and MWMC legal counsel David Jewett. Mr. Ruffler recalled the previous work sessions held on the topic on February 9, saying since the work session the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) had been finalized and provided to the City Council. The IGA reflected the final input of the bond counsels, financial advisors, legal counsels, and elected officials. Mr. Ruffler summarized the changes to the agreement, noting they were generally related to the financial provisions of the IGA and would allow the MWMC to issue revenue bonds needed to generate the revenue MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 4 Work Session necessary to implement the 2004 Facilities Plan. The modifications would strengthen the assurances that moderate rates and fees would be established sufficient to cover long-term borrowing by MWMC. Mr. Ruffler recommended approval of the agreement. Mr. Ruffler noted the feedback provided by the council was incorporated into the draft IGA in that the Metropolitan Policy Committee remained the dispute resolution body. A courtesy copy of the draft IGA was provided to the City of Coburg. Mr. Ruffler noted that a public hearing was scheduled for May 9, and final action was scheduled for May 23, 2005. The Springfield City Council held a work session on the item and would hold a public hearing and possibly take action on April 18. The Lane County Finance and Audit Committee discussed the IGA and had a follow-up meeting scheduled April 12 for further discussion. No action had been scheduled before the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly asked staff to discuss the Board of County Commissioners' position on the IGA and the County's role in the IGA. Mr. Ruffler said he did not want to speculate about the board's position as the board had not yet discussed the IGA. The chief executive officers of the three participating jurisdictions had discussed the issue, and County Administrator Bill Van Vactor discussed his interest in pursuing some options not outlined in the draft IGA. Mr. Ruffler noted that Commissioner Anna Morrison, a past member of the MWMC, indicated some concerns about the IGA. In regard to the role of the County, that was outlined in the IGA but it was not the same level of participation as that of the two cities. The County sets no wastewater rates and collects no fees. The County was originally involved in the MWMC as the financing agent and served as the entity that formed the service district that facilitated the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. City Manager Taylor said that legal counsel of the three jurisdictions reviewed the IGA. The County would have preferred the County service district be used as the funding entity. The managers and legal counsels of the two cities believed the recommended approach was the best approach. Mr. Van Vactor had suggested that if the three jurisdictions could not reach agreement, it might be time for the County to withdraw from the agreement. That idea could be pursued, but it was important for the MWMC to get to the bond market in the fall, in time for the first round of capital improvements. He hoped the County would adopt the changes so the timelines could be met. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Ruffler to explain a statement in the Agenda Item Summary that said the modifica- tions included a change in the directive to facilitate timely transfer of ownership. Mr. Ruffler said the original IGA referred to compensation to the cities for the regional facilities; that was because the existing plant was built on the site of the preexisting Eugene, and part of the Springfield, treatment plants which were then dedicated to regional purposes, and the original agreement related to compensation of the two cities for their property and facilities. That issue has never been closed out, although it was probably a moot issue over time. Mr. Poling referred to Section 16 in the IGA related to reconsideration of charges or rates, and asked how user rates and systems development charges (SDCs) were established, and what mechanism was in place for someone to appeal the final decision of the MWMC. Mr. Jewett indicated that both cities had MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 5 Work Session mechanisms in place that allowed residents to challenge their respective SDCs and fees. If the MWMC rates in general were being challenged, citizens could appear before the MWMC and make comments to seek changes. They could also appear before any of the governing bodies and request them to question the actions of the MWMC. Mr. Jewett said the MWMC has processes in place allowing residents to lodge complaints or express concerns. Mr. Poling was concerned about the fees and SDCs established to cover the bond covenants and additional money needed to maintain the bonding. He asked how that was established and what type of mechanism was in place to appeal that decision. Mr. Jewett said the process for establishing user rates and SDCs would remain unchanged. The MWMC would make recommendations to the governing bodies, which would adopt them by ordinance or City Manager action. He clarified that the MWMC did not impose either an SDC or a user rate on individual users. MWMC will recommend rates in the future to the city councils, just as it does know. The two cities would then go through their normal rate-setting process. Also in response to Mr. Poling's question, Mr. Klein said he believed that someone could challenge the fees in Circuit Court through a writ of review. Mr. Jewett said if there was no change in the SDC methodology but an action was taken that increased the SDC rate, the State SDC statute enabling the MWMC to establish the rate provided a mechanism for review. If there was a change to the methodology, the commission would make that recommendation to the governing bodies and there was a process in place to be followed. Mr. Poling thought it important to move forward with the rate-setting process to ensure the two communi- ties had a system in place to handle the wastewater the area produced and to keep the local rivers clean. Referring to page 10 of the Agenda Item Summary, Mr. Papb asked staff to clarify what a "minor" revision to the Facilities Plan entailed. Ms. Smith said the IGA provided for five-year updates, and any changes to the Facilities Plan that would drive a five percent user rate increase constituted a minor revision. It was not five percent of the overall cost of the Facilities Plan. The revision was user-rate sensitive. Mr. Pap~ asked if that could be quantified by numbers. Ms. Smith said staff had not done any research on that text, which was included at the request of Mr. Van Vactor as a means to gain greater accountability to the governing bodies. She added that the governing bodies would review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis, and any changes to the Facilities Plan would be reflected in the CIP. Mr. Pap~ sought an aggregate amount for any given year. Mr. Papb expressed concern about the element of the IGA related to the limited recourse of local government in regard to recommended rates or charges. He was concerned about the MWMC as the final arbiter of what was necessary to maintain bond ratings and access capital markets. He asked if there had been discussion of forming an independent body to make that determination. Ms. Smith clarified that the text in question was specifically requested for inclusion by the bond counsels. The finance staffs of Eugene and Springfield discussed the issue in terms of the target objectives for bond ratings and interest payments. Both cities have a stated policy of maintaining an "A" rating. Ms. Smith said it was implied that the MWMC would also seek an "A" rating. There were certain requirements for achieving that rating that would be provided by the financial advisors. City Manager Taylor added that part of the assurance to the governing bodies was that the commission would make its recommendation to the governing bodies, and any difference in their positions would be MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 6 Work Session referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for resolution. That resolution would then be referred to the three jurisdictions for adoption. The resolution must assure the bond holders that the bonds were sound. If the jurisdictions could not reach agreement through the MPC, the MWMC had the authority to make those assurances. Ms. Bettman asked if all the additional capacity projected in the Facilities Plan was within the city limits of Eugene and Springfield. Mr. Ruffler said the service area was within the urban growth boundaries of the two cities. Ms. Bettman asked if revenues collected from fees paid by Eugene ratepayers and SDCs collected from Eugene development were spent within the Eugene city limits only. In other words, did staff apportion services and infrastructure proportionately to the revenue and where the revenue was geographically collected? Mr. Ruffler said no. Most of the money was spent within the Eugene city limits because that was where the majority of the regional wastewater facilities were located. However, there were some facilities located outside either city. Ms. Bettman clarified that she was focused on capacity. She asked if wastewater fees were generated in the urbanizing areas, and maintained that residents of those areas paid no SDCs because they were in the County. She maintained that to the degree the City was providing services to the urban transition area, residents living within the city limits and in particular Eugene, with the largest concentration of residents, were subsidizing the capacity of those rate payers. Ms. Bettman referred to sections 4 and 5 on page 17 of the IGA, which referred to "promoting" equity between newly connected and previously connected users for contributions toward regional facilities and between various classes of users based on the volume, flow, and characteristics of their discharge. In other areas where equity was not being discussed, the IGA used terms such as "ensuring" and "comply- ing.'' She interpreted "promoting" as a squishy word that did not guarantee equity. Ms. Bettman had a lot of problems with the IGA. Her largest problem was that it was not compliant with City Growth Management Study policies that stated development was required to pay the full cost of extending services. The plan contained capacity for new development, and if the City could not ensure that SDCs could be collected at a rate that covered that capacity, the ratepayers would end up subsidizing it both in Eugene, Springfield, and in the urban transition area. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's question about whether the City's residents subsidized non-urban areas, Ms. Smith clarified the only residents provided services outside the city limits were those in River Road/Santa Clara, who were connected through a direct extension; in other words, they paid to extend service. User rates were proportional on a flow basis, so they were based on the flow used and its strength, and that was apportioned exactly by the users in either Springfield or Eugene. In regard to the SDC component, that was done on a demand or capacity basis and came down to a unit cost. However many units were built in either city paid the same amount. Ms. Smith noted that the MWMC, under the direction of the governing bodies and the settlement agreement with the Lane County Homebuilders Association, recently updated the SDC methodology with the criteria of equity, fairness, and statutory compliance in mind. The experts hired to take the citizen committee and staff through the exercise of developing the new methodology had to apply the statutory requirements to the methodology, which resulted in the current approach. That methodology was separate from the issue of the IGA. Ms. Taylor asked how much of the demand for wastewater service came from growth in the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Ruffler said demand was a mixture of growth and the need to meet more stringent federal permit limits. He was unsure of the exact percentage attributable to growth. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the potential of the City subsidizing growth and suggested that was happening more than once because of the council's intent to adopt an enterprise zone. Mr. Jewett indicated that of the $144 million in new projects, $57.8 would be paid for by growth manifested through the collection of SDCs. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Papb continued to object to the section of the agreement that gave the MWMC the power to set rates without the approval of the governing bodies or the MPC. He would also eliminate the text related to access to bond markets and meeting bond covenants and allow for a review of the MWMC's opinion by a different, independent body such as the MPC. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Ruffler said that the MWMC would go through a public process to adopt a budget and forward the budget to the two cities for ratification. Each city went through a separate process to adopt the budget. Eugene adopted the rates administratively, and the information was provided to rate payers in advance of adoption, but no public hearing occurred. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 about what was being done to address the issues of infiltration and inflow, Mr. Ruffler said the two communities had worked with the MWMC to establish programs for each city to address infiltration and inflow. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the item for five minutes. The mo- tion passed unanimously. Ms. Ortiz assured the viewing public that the City was not considering the IGA because it wanted to, but because it had to in order to meet certain federal permitting requirements. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Smith said the term "connection fees" had been replaced by "systems development charges." That change was made through the IGA. Ms. Bettman did not believe that the figure cited by Mr. Jewett regarding the capacity needed for new development would fulfill the needs of all such new development. She maintained that the project list contained unfunded new capacity that rate payers would be required to subsidize. She determined from Mr. Ruffler that the MWMC set the SDC rates for regional wastewater SDCs. The cities established the local wastewater rate. City Manager Taylor noted that the three governing bodies reviewed the SDC and must also adopt it. Ms. Bettman maintained she was told the reason the City could not increase its SDCs for capacity was because the rates were set at a regional level, and the IGA required the City to have rates that were consistent with Springfield's.. She reiterated that the IGA was inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Study policies, and asked the manager for input on how the IGA could be made consistent with those policies. City Manager Taylor did not know the answer to Ms. Bettman's question, and assured the council that the IGA was the best effort of the three jurisdictions, their bond counsels, and their attorneys to create a mechanism by which the MWMC could go to the bond market and successfully sell bonds. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff generate some information about how much of the project list contained in MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 8 Work Session the Facilities Plan was due to growth, how the cost was calculated, and what would be paid for by SDCs. Speaking to some earlier remarks made by Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly said he believed that before any significant development occurred in the urban transition area, annexation would be require, and therefore would be subject to City SDCs. Mr. Ruffler concurred. Mr. Kelly suggested a staff response to the question of whether the capacity needed for growth in the urbanizing area would be paid by SDCs. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's concern about Section 16, Mr. Kelly said he did not see why the section could not be revised to involve the MPC before the MWMC made an ultimate decision. C. WORK SESSION: Chase Gardens Mixed-Use Area The council was joined for the item by Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter and Senior Planner Allen Lowe. Mr. Yeiter provided background on the item, noting there were several such mixed-use areas being considered for additional planning, and he anticipated that issues of how to accommodate growth while retaining neighborhood character and natural resources would continue to be discussed in context of those areas as they were reviewed. He said that nodes, or mixed-use centers, were the region's adopted approach toward accommodating growth in a manner that improved neighborhoods, increased transporta- tion options, satisfied State goals for reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and accomplished all those goals in a humane and livable way. Mr. Yeiter said that while the City had articulated broad visions for those areas many times over the years, it was finding that getting the mixed-use centers built in a manner that met the vision was the biggest challenge. The Chase mixed-use center was a good example of that. The center was planned during the development of the Willakenzie Area Plan. Following that, Eugene received a Transportation Growth Management grant from the State and went through a lengthy planning process involving the neighbor- hood and a consultant team. That resulted in amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Willakenzie Area Plan, and the development of a special mixed-use zone for the area. Mr. Yeiter said the amendments and special zone were intended to make the area more marketable, particularly for the commercial uses envisioned. The City employed relatively flexible standards for the area; for example, it had not applied the FlOor Area Ratio (FAR) to the development. The City attempted to meet the key objectives of getting the mixed-use development through private investment with few disincentives. A market analysis had been performed at that time and private interest had been high, and the City believed the area would be the first operating node. The developer who was on board at the time had believed the desired retail uses, including a large grocery store, could be brought into the site. Mr. Yeiter said as time passed, the short-term market for such a grocery did not exist at the site, and the developer sold the site. The commercial portion was now being proposed for a medical clinic use. Mr. Yeiter said that the work session was held because the Harlow Neighbors requested it. He said the neighbors were disappointed about the loss of a neighborhood retail center. Mr. Yeiter said the develop- ers had made an effort to secure some retail uses on the site but had not been able to secure a grocery store. He did not think the property could hold both a medical clinic and a large grocery store. Even if a grocery store was built on other commercial properties within the node, east of Garden Way, it would not be the optimum site for the pedestrian-friendly node the City hoped to see built. Mr. Yeiter said the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 9 Work Session had few tools, particularly financial tools, to bring to the situation. Mr. Yeiter said that Harlow Neighbors asked the City to place a moratorium on the development of the property and consider zoning changes that would require a grocery store or at least limit the amount of non-retail development that occurred on the site. He said the neighbors would like to see more financial incentives created to facilitate a different type of development and additional staff resources placed toward the issue. Mr. Yeiter said that staff had spent considerable time over the past few months in an attempt to re-site the proposed medical use to the downtown core. For a variety of reasons, that had not worked out. Mr. Yeiter suggested that one option was for the City to purchase the property and become the developer. However, if there was no market for a grocery store, that would be problematic. He said that moratoriums contain loopholes, and staff did not recommend that approach. Mr. Yeiter referred the council to e-mail correspondence from Matt Grady of Gramor Development and from Terry Froemming of the Harlow Neighbors. Mr. Yeiter noted that the high-density residential development on the property adjacent to the area in question appeared to be working very well. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor said the point of the mixed-use center was to give residents of the high-density residential development a place to go to shop. She did not think that would work with the medical clinic being proposed. She said the proposed development would not help the City satisfy State requirements in regard to VMT. Instead, there would be an increased need for autos because of the intense development without services nearby. If the property was developed as proposed, there would be no further opportunity for such services. She thought the City should do what it could to facilitate a grocery store use. Ms. Taylor asked about the loopholes associated with the moratorium. Mr. Yeiter said that the most obvious was that the State law required a 45-day notice for a moratorium, which was sufficient time to allow a property owner to become vested in a development application. City Attorney Glenn Klein concurred. The State law had a process in place that included, at a minimum, the 45-day notice. There was an additional 45 days allowed for public comment. Any one who applied for a permit was allowed to have the permit evaluated on the code in place at that time. Even an incomplete building permit application was acceptable under State law. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could deny approval of a medical facility on the site, and if there was any other suitable land in the area for such a grocery store. Mr. Yeiter thought it would be difficult to deny the medical facility use. He added the medical facility would not use the entire 8-1/2 acres of the site. However, he was unsure the remaining land would be large enough for a grocery of the size desired by the council and neighbors. Grocers usually locate where there was other retail uses to attract customers. Mr. Yeiter said there were about two acres zoned for commercial use on the east side of Garden Way that might be suitable for a grocery store. Staff had discussed the potential ofrezoning more commercial land but would then have to replace the lost residential land. Ms. Bettman said the smaller footprint for the grocery store she had preferred was not intended to limit the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 10 Work Session size of the grocery store but rather was intended to limit the footprint of the first floor. She wished the City could have found a site downtown for the proposed medical use, but acknowledged that such infill development would be a challenge. Ms. Bettman suggested the City Council needed to discuss what it was willing to do to help facilitate infill development. Mr. Yeiter noted that most of the City's existing incentives were focused on downtown. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council adopted a ten percent discount for transportation SDCs in nodes, which was a form of an incentive. Mr. Yeiter concurred. However, he was unsure the medical development in question was eligible for that incentive as such a development must have nodal characteristics to qualify. Ms. Bettman sympathized with the immediate neighbors and other residents in the community similarly affected by development near them. She said the City Council could only address such issues on a policy basis. It could not act to stop individual applications. If City polices and regulations were not working out, the council should revisit them in a comprehensive way. Although she believed the nodal develop- ment policies the Land Use Measures Task Force had originally considered had been eroded to a minimal threshold, she believed the area in question had some characteristics that met those standards. Ms. Bettman pointed out the use would create employment in the node and redevelopment opportunities remained for the future. The surface parking lot may attract more development. A multi-story office building was proposed to front onto the street and take access to the sidewalk and parking, and those were two of the criterion established by the council. The most negative thing Ms. Bettman could say about the proposal was it had 20 more parking spaces than required. She was not willing to entertain a moratorium to try to retroactively change the standards. Mr. Poling thanked the residents of the Harlow neighborhood who worked to address the issues associated with the development, as well as the finn W&G, which worked to find common ground with the City. He encouraged staff to continue to work with the neighbors and developers to ensure further compromise occurred in a way that was consistent and predictable with the City Code. Mr. Poling stressed that when he had requested the work session, it was not his intention to attempt to stop the development. He asked if a motion to proceed was required. City Manager Taylor said that the City was obligated to respond to the developer's application and no motion was necessary. Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Klein if the City was in danger of a Ballot Measure 37 claim as it related to the development. Mr. Klein said that if the City adopted a moratorium and changed the standards so they diminished the value of the property, there was the potential of such a claim. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments about the potential nodal aspects of the proposed development. She said there was no market for a grocery store in the node now, but the presence of the medical facility could trigger the development of a grocery store in the future. Ms. Ortiz was not supportive of a moratorium. She said that the small local grocery stores that were in place when she first came to the community were now gone. Grocery stores now were larger and people wanted larger grocery stores. Ms. Ortiz wanted staff to continue working with the neighbors, and she commended the neighbors for their involvement in the issue. Mr. Pap6 indicated he had supported the work session request because he wanted to err on the side of more discussion and review for the benefit of both continuing and new councilors. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Pap6 said that Eugene had yet to develop a node and he hoped that it would. At the time the council considered the Chase Gardens node, he voted against the three criterions the council mandated for the node because he thought the council was far too prescriptive in its approach to nodes and developers would be repelled. He said that nodes should be a precept, not a prescription. He also opposed a moratorium as he believed that would be changing the rules improperly. He said that the property was purchased after the purchasers consulted with City staff about what development could occur. Mr. Kelly advocated for staff to arrange for sit-down meetings between the neighbors and developers. Mr. Kelly believed that it was an urban legend to suggest that if the council had relaxed its two-story standard, development would have occurred in the area in question. He noted that a representative of Gramor, the past owner of the site, indicated in an e-mail correspondence that City staff had been willing to recommend to the council the standards be relaxed if it would facilitate the development, and the company did not pursue that approach because no primary anchor tenant was willing to occupy the site. He also expressed sympathy to the neighbors, and expressed surprise that the residential densities in the area did not support a grocery store. However, it was clear grocery store developers had been approached about the potential of their locating a store at the site and declined to do so. Mr. Kelly observed that no matter how many people reviewed a detailed code something would come up that fit the code but was never pictured by anyone. He had never envisioned the code could accommodate such a medical development, but he believed Ms. Bettman remarks about the nodal aspects of the development were well-stated. Mr. Kelly suggested that the alternative path or some similar approach could help the City achieve community goals through development. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Yeiter would share anything he learned when trying to encourage the medical use to locate downtown. Mr. Yeiter noted that Mike Sullivan and Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department had done most of that work. Mr. Pryor agreed that what one wished would happen in a location and what happened were not the same. His neighborhood had a small shopping mall where two grocery stores had failed. He said the mixed-use concept was good, but from a practical viewpoint, feasibility analyses clearly indicated it would not work on the site. He encouraged the City to work with the developer to carry out the plan that was already there. Ms. Taylor suggested that if the City was going to achieve its VMT goals, it should preclude anything on mixed-use sites that was not compatible with mixed-use development. If that was not possible, the City should not pretend it could accomplish its goals through such mixed-use centers. Mayor Piercy joined in the thanks to the neighborhood group and developer. She commended their work, and hoped that Mr. Poling would become more involved. She suggested some thinking outside the box could be order to help achieve the goals of nodal development in part; perhaps there was an opportunity for an outdoor market at the location. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 12 Work Session Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 13 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall April 11, 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. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Presentation from New Zone Artist Collective and IMPACT Arts Steve Lariccia said Mayor Piercy was the guest speaker at a fundraiser for the New Zone Arts Collective and the IMPACT Arts. He thanked her for her kind words and presented a framed poster to her that had been signed by all of the artists. He said the fundraising work had aided the New Zone Arts Gallery in finding a new space. Tom Higgins, president of the New Zone Art Gallery, thanked the City. He announced that the gallery would reopen at its new location at 975 Oak Alley for the first Friday Art Walk scheduled for May 6. He noted that the gallery had a Web site: newzone.org. He recommended that the councilors check out the site. Mayor Piercy said she was honored to receive the poster and she looked forward to seeing the gallery in its new location. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Pauline Hutsui, 1025 Taylor Street, reiterated her opposition to the proposal to locate a hospital on the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site. She pointed out that two lanes of the Ferry Street Bridge had been closed for 90 minutes due to an auto accident on April 6. She was dismayed at how little attention was being paid to the lack of access to the site, which she considered to be a critical issue. She felt there was a high probability that emergency vehicles would run into problems if they attempted to use the bridge. She noted that one car stalled on the bridge recently and caused traffic to be backed up for five blocks. Additionally, she expressed concem about the increased rush hour traffic. She predicted it would create dire circumstances in terms of reaching a hospital in a timely fashion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, circulated copies of a resolution the West University Neighbors Association adopted that requested the City's involvement in any plan the University of Oregon had to build a basketball arena. He noted that since the neighborhood association had passed it, the resolution had also been approved by two student cooperatives, the Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO), and the Whiteaker Neighborhood Executive Board. He hoped to gain more endorsements. He wanted to slow the process down and allow for more public input. Mr. Vishanoff expressed concern that the University of Oregon campus might be a possible site for future Olympic trials. He called this a "really big decision," important to have a "real discussion about." He thought communities became overbuilt and "over-surveilled" as a result of being Olympic sites. Mr. Vishanoff reiterated his opposition to the University's movement of older housing that it owned from the East Campus area. He called it "ongoing discrimination" and asserted that it was "illegal and racist." Ed Singer, 4160 Eddystone Place, favored a large community park in the Santa Clara site currently under consideration for a land swap. He recalled that area residents were promised such a park prior to voting on the 1998 Parks Bond Measure. He felt a land swap to be a "win-win situation." He recognized concerns some residents had regarding a large increase in population in that area, but averred the land would ultimately be developed regardless of whether the City undertook the land swap at this time. He suggested the City purchase the property in order to mitigate those concerns. Hope Marston, 3110 University Street, spoke in support of Resolution 4830, urging the federal government to uphold international treaties against torture and inhuman treatment. She thanked councilors Bettman and Taylor for bringing the resolution to the attention of the City Council. She recognized that some people would question whether this was a local government issue. She averred that not only Congress, but each and every citizen should honor the principles of the Constitution and the treaties made by the government. She pointed out that councilors had promised in their oath of office to defend the United States Constitution. She cited the 5th Amendment which bans self-incrimination, the 8th Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. She stated that torture destroyed constitutional guarantees that apply to all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship. She stressed that the United States principles must be upheld for the entire world to see. She urged support of the resolution because it was for the benefit of the United States' soldiers who also should be treated in a humane way in accordance with the Geneva Convention. She asserted that torture made everyone less safe from terrorism. She pointed out that in 2002 the Eugene City Council became the 16th city nationwide to remind the US Congress that the citizens of Eugene still valued their Bill of Rights, threatened by the Patriot Act. Gordie Albi, 1690 Adkins Street, #2, averred that the City of Eugene should be leading the country in its opposition to torture because it had been the location of the first residential psychological, medical, and social rehabilitation project. She explained that it had begun over ten years ago for the purpose of aiding survivors of torture from Latin America and had been an all-volunteer project. She listed some of the contributors, including the Easter Seal Society, Sacred Heart Hospital, and Whitebird Medical Clinic. She stated that the University of Oregon law students had won the first case of political asylum in the state of Oregon for someone from Guatemala. She provided pictures and an article from The Register-Guard regarding the program. She also read from the brochure, underscoring that people needed to stand together to end torture. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session Tom Watson, 1963 7th Street, Springfield, spoke in regard to the ICMA/PERF Report on the problems in the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He thought it seemed clear that the department had prior knowledge of its problems. He asserted that though eight years earlier such a report had been requested, the City Council had paid $108,000 to "hear it all over again." He felt the City officials had failed its citizenry by declining to act on the earlier report. He averred the present report pointed to a lack of supervision, training, and accountability. He called the report a "smoking gun of liability" for the City of Eugene. He stated that the City needed leadership and needed to get the "bad cops offthe streets." He quoted Gall Fisher-Stewart, who asked what kind of culture would allow these activities to go unnoticed and unaddressed. He asserted that Eugene still wanted to believe that the EPD was not in crisis. He alleged that the City would not be in this position today had it responded appropriately to the study eight years earlier. He felt the human resources division was pushing diversity over public good and sweeping changes in the EPD were necessary. Paul Cont& 1461 West 10th Avenue, member of the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN), provided copies of the research done by the group on the R-2 zoned lots that were east of Chambers Street in the Chambers Node Revisited (CNR) project area. He said the research presented a clear picture that in this area the infill policy of Eugene had failed to produce substantial benefit in reducing pressure for sprawl and instead had done substantial harm to healthy functioning parts of this pedestrian-friendly neighborhood with close-in lots. He recounted that for many years the R-2 zoning had allowed roughly two dwellings per lot and this resulted in the development of smaller scale dense dwellings such as duplexes and small attached and detached units. He felt this had little impact on the stability of the neighborhood. Since then, the allowance for density had been substantially increased in an attempt to relieve the pressure of urban sprawl. He said 27 lots with three or more dwelling units had been developed, of which 19 caused severe negative impacts on adjacent properties and five caused substantial negative impacts. He felt this was the sort of hard data that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) should be gathering. He said CAFHN would present proposals for development standards to the Planning Commission and the City Council that would allow density that exceeded levels set by the City and regional policies. He added that those proposals would also start to implement City and regional policies to protect and stabilize established neighborhoods. He underscored that the proposals would be grounded in thorough research. Carol DeFazio, 1437 West l0th Avenue, also represented CAFHN. She noted that CAFHN had presented its interim Neighbors' Report to the council in February, which included a comprehensive description of the character of their neighborhood. She commented that the basic patterns of the neighborhood were simple, elegant, intuitive, and effective. She asserted that they had stood the test of time and had made the neighborhood the "wonderful, friendly, diverse, and successful urban community" it had been for over 75 years. She averred that developers and planners were now designing large-scale neo-traditional developments all over the country, including on the fringes of Eugene. She alleged that existing neighborhoods were under a constant threat of destabilization. She thought current R-2 zoning standards left older neighborhoods vulnerable to exploitation as developers would come in and attempt to build as many units as possible on a lot without thinking of the impacts on neighbors. She called it "tragic," as this infill did not save farmland and only destroyed the character of existing neighborhoods. She asked what sense there was to land use planning that tossed out the "genuine article" for a reproduction. Kate Perle, 4740 Wendover Street, noted that the council had been provided copies of a document produced by the Santa Clara Community Organization entitled An Alternative Proposal for Community Park Facilities in Santa Clara. She read the preamble into the record, which laid the groundwork for a proposal to find a number of smaller parcels to use for parks rather than expanding the urban growth MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session boundary (UGB) to allow for the proposed land swap and development of a larger park. Speaking for herself, she urged close consideration of the proposal because she felt the McDougal land swap was a precedent-setting issue. She thought the council should consider how it would affect future development of the Santa Clara area and the surrounding community. She felt the goals of the Parks and Open Space Division could be achieved in other ways. She agreed with Ed Singer that Eugene would grow, but averred that a growth plan should look to preserve Class 1 soils to feed the increasing population. Mai eska Seese-Green, PO Box 1214, president of the Whiteaker Community Council, spoke on behalf of the Railroad Pollution Coalition (RPC). She conveyed its support for the amendment brought forward by Councilor Ortiz that proposed to exclude properties now owned by the railroad from the application for an enterprise zone. She alleged that a number of properties that were within the railyard boundary were now included in the proposed zone and asked that the boundary be adjusted to remove any rail-owned and other railyard-related properties. She indicated that the coalition believed the intent of the amendment had been the exclusion of all of the properties within the Eugene railyard. She urged that planning be done for the railyard and surrounding neighborhoods before industrial or any other type of development was actively promoted in the area. She stressed the importance of planning in order to avoid diminishment of the health and livability of surrounding neighborhoods. She suggested that Northwest Container Services was poised to develop one or more parcels in the vicinity. She conveyed the neighborhood's concern that the new facility was considered to be a potential spur to additional distribution and trucking facilities in the same vicinity. She predicted this would initiate further growth that would thwart comprehensive planning. She opposed providing tax waivers to such development. Linda Swisher, 3285 Bell Avenue, stated that the RPC represented four neighborhood associations and other community groups concerned about Eugene's railyard. She acknowledged the ambiguities in how the railyard was defined. She related that RPC had found little justification in the definition of railroad property boundaries provided by staff. She alleged that staff had bisected some properties while leaving others out altogether. She said the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had little information and no maps showing railyard tax lots. She asserted that the DEQ admitted it did not know the "justification for how the boundary of the yard" was depicted on their maps. She averred that the DEQ environmental contamination site investigation database listed seven tax lots as within the Eugene railyard site, described in a letter submitted to the council. The RPC believed that, at a minimum, the seven lots should be included as part of the railyard exclusion from the enterprise zone. Additionally, she said Appendix L of the enterprise zone application failed to mention that comprehensive planning had not been done for the rail-related areas of the zone. She noted that the application mentioned Eugene's active neighborhoods program. She pointed out that the member neighborhood groups in the RPC had not received information on the enterprise zone and that participating neighborhood groups would be asked to sign advisory letters to the State in opposition to the enterprise zone. Nadia Sindi, 3950 Goodpasture Island Loop, urged the council to take a stand against torture. She said she had been born in the Middle East in a country that did not respect human rights. She came to this country for freedom and she wanted to be proud to be American. She stated that she dealt with many Arab-American and Muslim issues, especially since the tragic events of September 11,2001. George Gessert, 86070 Cougar Lane, commented that it was unfortunate that the council had to discuss the resolution against torture, especially given the number of pressing local issues. He said it was apparent that President George W. Bush approved of the use of torture, making this clear to the world through his appointments and his defense of Donald Rumsfield. He pointed out that the majority of the members of both houses of Congress had supported the President or acquiesced to him about this issue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session He alleged that the practice of torture was being continued in the prisons in Iraq, though it violated the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. He felt it was no longer possible to go to elected leaders on a national level. This necessitated that such things be addressed locally. Henry Alley, 835 East 32nd Avenue, supported Resolution 4830. He felt it was profoundly relevant to the city of Eugene for the following four reasons: 1) Assurance that people were being treated humanely around the world developed pride in our country; 2) Combining with other communities in support of this resolution sends a strong message that this country believes in keeping promises such as those made in the Geneva Convention; 3) The resolution was in keeping with Eugene's presentation of itself as a humane city, which only worked to create a more secure city; 4) A more humane United States meant a more humane Eugene. Bob Pearson, 5170 Fox Hollow Road, thanked the Mayor and the City Council for giving so much of their time to this job. He said the Mayor and councilors understood the "larger picture" and carded it out with genuine sincerity. He shared that he watched the council meetings on television. He quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, "the whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." He said on the surface it often looked like the truth needed some adjustment in an effort to gain popularity. He averred that popularity would go away but truth never changed. He remarked that it took a wise person to "bat 800" on any issue. He thanked the council and Mayor for the way they struggled "to be honest." He commented that he would be exhausted if he had to participate in council meetings. Ray Wolfe, 1473 Luella Street, said his investigation into the process leading up to the proposed enterprise zone had lead him to suggest that the City undertake a more comprehensive study prior to voting on it. He was particularly concerned about the millions in lost tax revenue, especially given that EPD lacked sufficient personnel to meet community need for crime prevention. He asserted that there were serious oversights in the 2004 Economic Development Committee report, primarily in the lack of data from the 1997 Enterprise Zone Advisory Committee minority report. He referred the council to an article from a 1996 professional review entitled, Rhetoric Versus Reality Reveals Studies o fa State Enterprise Zone, a real study of enterprise zones, and an academic study entitled, State Enterprise Programs: Have They Worked, all three of which he felt raised questions about the effectiveness of such zones. He recalled that the 1997 council had voted to allow the existing zone to expire, because of observations made in the committee reports. He opined that many of those observations were still valid. He averred that enterprise zones were not effective engines for economic growth. He asked the council to defer its vote on this issue until more comprehensive studies had been completed. Ann Vaughn, 4269 Altura Street, wished to address the land swap that would extend the UGB in Santa Clara. She said the exchange would provide Santa Clara with much needed space. She stated that although she was on the Santa Clara Organization Board and on the River Road/Santa Clara Task Force, she was speaking only for herself. She acknowledged the strong feelings on both sides of the issue within the community. While she respected those who oppose consideration of the proposal and the work they had done to come up with alternatives, she believed that especially with the passage of Ballot Measure 37, few opportunities such as this would present themselves. She called it critical that the community be visionary and plan for future growth. She felt it was reasonable to assume that the acreage involved would be developed with or without the land swap. She predicted that without the land swap there would likely be no 77-acre park and wetland preservation would be questionable. She also predicted that little MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session consideration would be given to assimilate the development with the present neighborhood without the swap. She urged the council not to let this opportunity slip by without looking into its feasibility. Claire Syrett, 363 Adams Street, wished to speak about the establishment of community standards within the proposed enterprise zone. She stated that she was an organizer for the Eugene/Springfield Solidarity Network: Jobs With Justice (ESSN). She asserted that public money used to subsidize private business should result in a measurable public benefit. She indicated that a business providing low-wage jobs with no benefits ended up costing tax payers twice, first in an enterprise zone subsidy and then again when the low wage worker needed help to feed his or her children or showed up at the emergency room for medical care. She related that the United Way 2004 State of Caring report indicated that Lane County's working families were struggling to meet basic needs. She reported that among households earning between $20,000 and $34,000 per year, 30 percent lacked enough money for food and 25 percent lacked enough money for decent housing. She noted that a full-time, minimum wage worker would make approximately $15,000 annually. She supported the establishment of community standards in the enterprise zone so that Eugene could help to move Lane County toward wage and benefit standards that would meet the basic needs of families. She said having employers who benefit from the enterprise zone provide a living wage to its workers by the time the tax incentives expired was a goal of ESSN. She defined a living wage as a wage on which workers could support themselves and one dependent. She hoped Eugene would pass such standards, calling it the first important step to move surrounding cities and the Lane Board of County Commissioners to adopt similar standards. Russ Brink, 132 East Broadway Street, #103, Downtown Eugene, Incorporated (DEl), said among many positive developments in the downtown area were a series of activities and programs in the summer that were to be coordinated with the City's efforts to promote the arts and outdoors. Mr. Brink favored the application for the enterprise zone, adding his observation that "there must be some reason" why so many local governments in Oregon used the tool. He thought the previous enterprise zone program had worked well for Eugene. He strongly recommended prompt submittal of the application. Kevin Matthews, 1192 Lawrence Street, president of the Friends of Eugene, expressed his enjoyment of the comments provided at the Public Forum. He averred, however, that only a few of the residents of Eugene could come to a council meeting. He wondered what the citizens "at large" think on issues such as nodal development, UGB expansions, and enterprise zones. He noted that an economic news release, which he did not cite, had called Oregon the second fastest growing state in the country. He felt this meant that Oregon was "open enough" for business. Continuing, Mr. Matthews reviewed a graph taken from former councilor Shawn Boles' personal analysis of the 1998 Eugene Growth Management Study, copies of which were provided to the council. He extrapolated from it that the citizens who were members of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce were diametrically opposed to the desires of the rest of the citizens of Eugene regarding growth management. He said the citizens were "shouting into the wind." He registered his opposition to the enterprise zone. Karl Sorg, 1555 West 18t~ Avenue, #11, supported the resolution addressed to the federal government and its "acts of terror." He recounted the military service he volunteered for during World War II, noting that he volunteered for it because he was terrified at the fascism he had seen in Spain, Germany, Italy, and France. He opined that he now saw his country engaged in terrorism he perceived to be outlandish. He expressed shame for the country. He urged the council to pass the resolution that condemned the government's use of torture in its war against a people. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and opened the floor for councilor comments and questions. Councilor Poling appreciated Mr. Pearson's comments and thanked him for them. Regarding the railroad property, Councilor Poling stated that the motion on the floor excluded it from the enterprise zone. He believed that if there were any other parcels of railroad property included in the enterprise zone, the motion should be tabled until it could be properly amended to exclude it all. Councilor Kelly thanked those present for the "extraordinary range and quality" of the testimony. He requested a staff reaction to the parks proposal submitted by the Santa Clara Community Organization providing it would not violate the two-hour rule for staff time. He was specifically interested in whether the Santa Clara Elementary School site could feasibly be used as a site for an aquatic center. Councilor Kelly wished to know if the other councilors were interested in co-producing some sort of forum for discussion of the proposed basketball arena. He asked the City Manager to check in with the University of Oregon, given that it was the University's property, to determine if there was a way for the City to cooperate in organizing a public discussion on the project. Councilor Ortiz also thanked everyone for coming to the Public Forum. She appreciated comments about the enterprise zone and wished to reiterate that it was the council's intention to exclude the railyard properties. Councilor Ortiz asked if the proposed Santa Clara park could be placed on the agenda. City Manager Dennis Taylor responded that all of the information from the appraisals and from the survey was forthcoming and he predicted the item would be scheduled by the next week's agenda. Councilor Papa agreed that the testimony was "wonderful." He echoed Councilor Ortiz' comments regarding the Santa Clara park proposals. He appreciated Mr. Singer's remarks and expressed hope that residents would continue to have a public dialogue about what should happen with regard to a community park promised by the parks bond in 1998. He looked forward to learning more of the facts about the land swap. Councilor Papa expressed his appreciation for the work of CAFHN. He stated that it was not often that a group of concerned citizens came to the council with a clear background in research and a commitment to move ahead positively and bring forth proposals that would work for their area of town. He called it a great way for a community to act and to give the council help that it needed. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for coming. She said the citizens of Eugene were intelligent and well- informed. She admired the persistence of the Santa Clara citizens and the CAFHN members. She hoped the council would listen to their concerns. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone who welcomed the council back with "thoughtful testimony." She wished to respond to the person who testified about the car accident on the Ferry Street Bridge and pointed out that the bridge was the corridor by which the people in the north end of town accessed the existing hospital. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session Councilor Bettman stated that unless Resolution 4830 was pulled from the Consent Calendar, it would be approved without discussion. She thanked Ms. Marston and others for presenting the many reasons why the City should support the resolution. Continuing, Councilor Bettman stated that there would be a public hearing on April 25 at 7:30 p.m. for the community to give feedback to the City Council regarding the independent auditors' report (ICMA/PERF) on the EPD. Councilor Bettman thanked Mr. Conte and Ms. DeFazio for their work on the CAFHN standards. She pointed out that one of the top priorities unanimously adopted by the council and the Mayor sought to launch a neighborhoods initiative. She said three of the issues that were important to her were that urban core neighborhoods were eroding, that parks in those neighborhoods were becoming less safe, and that the City was seeing an erosion of the demand for downtown property because there was a "liberal provision of conditional use permits" allowing properties to change from residential to commercial and office uses. Regarding the land swap offer, Councilor Bettman regretted that she had not asked for an appraisal of the property that the McDougal Brothers would be left with when she had asked for the appraisal of the property the City might gain. She felt the value of the property would dwarf the actual contribution they had proposed to make to the City. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - 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 March 9, 2005, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funding for Two Homeownership Units D. Appointments to the Citizen Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park E. Appointment to Lane Workforce Partnership F. Adoption of Resolution 4830 Urging the Federal Government of the United States of America to Uphold and Defend International Treaties and Conventions Against Torture and Inhuman Treatment, and Further Ensure That All United States Government Agencies Abide by and Enforce These Treaties Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Councilor Solomon asked to pull Item F from the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor pulled Item D. Councilor Kelly noted that he had previously submitted minutes corrections electronically. Councilor Bettman said she had previously submitted minutes corrections electronically as well. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the corrections. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of items D and F passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor thanked the outgoing members of the Citizen Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park (CPCWNA) for their service. Councilor Pap6 expressed concern regarding the change in the motion before the council and indicated he would offer an amendment to it. He felt there should be a wide array of citizenry serving on such a committee. He noted that no one representing wards 5, 6, 7, and 8 had been selected, though one person from Ward 5 had applied. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion to appoint Eliot McIntire to Position 15, for the unexpired term of Art Farley, on the Citizen Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Backer Park, an interim appointment beginning upon appointment and ending on October 31, 2005. Councilor Bettman indicated her dissatisfaction with the process. She maintained the nominations were under the purview of the Mayor. She did not believe it appropriate to bring up the nomination at this point. She supported upholding the Mayor's recommendations at this time. She suggested that concerns about the geographic distribution of committee members be a topic of discussion for the City Council Process Session scheduled for April 18. Councilor Kelly echoed Councilor Bettman's comments, adding that he did wish that more committees called for council interviews rather than a mayoral lead. Councilor Pap6 understood the change in the recommendations given by the Mayor were based upon the current committee recommendations for who should serve. Mayor Piercy responded that she reviewed the information from the applicants, and then made an "initial run" at making the recommendation. Upon receiving further information, she related that she made changes to her original recommendation. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the motion the council believed to be in the Consent Calendar was the substitute motion. Mayor Piercy affirmed that this was so. Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Pap6 voting in favor. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy moved on to Item F, the resolution to take a stand against torture and ensure that all United States agencies abide by international treaties. Councilor Solomon explained that she had pulled the resolution because she did not agree that it was within the council's purview. She was most concerned because the resolution had come before the council with only two votes out of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) and had been placed on the Consent Calendar. Had she not pulled the item, it would have been voted on without discussion. She pointed out that she would have to solicit four votes should she want to place an item on the table. She did not think this was transparent government. Councilor Kelly underscored that the CCIGR majority represented only two votes because there were only three councilors on the committee. He averred she had the same mechanism open to her, which was that a matter she believed to fell under the purview of the CCIGR could be brought to its attention and voted upon there, and then subsequently brought forward to the council for approval. He agreed the item should have been a stand-alone item. Councilor Kelly disagreed with Councilor Solomon's assertion that the resolution was not under the purview of the City Council. He reiterated that the councilors had taken an oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution and the resolution was the business of all of the residents of the country to defend and uphold the Constitution. Councilor Bettman averred that as the greatest "superpower" of the world, the United States needed to set the highest standard for human rights. Because the City was not asking the federal government to make new laws, it was asking the government to uphold existing treaties and agreements, she believed it "very appropriate" to reinforce this position through the resolution. She noted that the resolution was not precedent-setting as the council had taken a stand on the Patriot Act. Councilor Pap~ supported the spirit and substance of the resolution. He did not, however, believe it was a matter that belonged before the City Council. He averred this resolution was different than the resolution that took a stand against the Patriot Act in that the Patriot Act affected local residents. However, he indicated he would support the motion. Councilor Taylor urged support of the resolution. She said she was proud of the council for passing the Patriot Act resolution. She felt the City of Eugene was a leader in the nation. Councilor Ortiz concurred. She stated that local residents asked the council to take positions on such issues and the council should do so. She felt the council should take a stand against war crimes. Councilor Poling said he originally intended to vote in opposition. He commented that the council could not even "get through [its] own business" and yet found time to weigh in on federal issues. He indicated he would support the resolution, however. Councilor Solomon did not think there had been adequate public participation in this item. She pointed out that there was an alternative path; that councilors and citizens could write letters as individuals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session Councilor Pryor commented that he was normally disinclined to address issues that were far away from the business of the City. He said there were many issues that were appropriate in a larger forum that did not involve the City, its jurisdiction, and what it had to do. He thought once in a while, an issue came forward that, while not directly related to the City, was so important in its impact that the City should at least take a stand. He stated that torture was reprehensible. He supported the resolution, but stressed that he would not support every big issue that came before the council. He encouraged the council to reserve such resolutions for very special instances given that the council had a lot of business to conduct for the City. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4831 Forming a Local Improvement District For Paving, Constructing Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Pedestrian Medians, Street Lights, and Stormwater Drainage on River Avenue From 200 Feet East of River Road to 100 Feet West of Beltline Highway City Manager Taylor asked Michclle Cahill, Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department, to provide a brief overview of thc proposed resolution. Ms. Cahill stated that the public hearing was primarily to consider whether a local improvement district (LID) should be formed for River Avenue. She reported that the initial hearing had been held by a Hearings Official in the summer of 2004, and was continued before the council because of the number of remonstrances received at that hearing. She said the Lane Board of County Commissioners reconsidered its action of the summer of 2004 as well, and approved an order in February 2005, that authorized the City to assess the ten unincorporated properties that had frontage on River Avenue. Additionally, she stated that the contractor had agreed to hold to its original bid at the prices of the summer of last year. She indicated that the street plan was consistent with the arterial collector street plan and with the County's standards for an urban major collector. Ms. Cahill outlined the changes that had been made to the design standards for the project: sidewalk width was recommended to be changed from ten feet to five feet on a setback walk and six and a half feet for a curbside walk. She said in order to minimize the right-of-way action and conflicts to the trees, the City planned to "meander" the sidewalk. She indicated the third exception to the design standards was the inclusion of a turn lane at the west end of the project. She reminded the council that it was scheduled to take action on April 20, 2005. Mayor Piercy called for a five-minute break at 9:01 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mayor Piercy reviewed the remaining agenda and determined that it was unlikely that the council would take action on Agenda Item 7: Resolution 4832 Authorizing the City Manager to Make Application to the State of Oregon for Designation of a West Eugene Enterprise Zone. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for testimony. Anna Morrison, 125 East 8th Avenue, speaking on behalf of the Lane Board of County Commissioners, stated that on February 9, 2005, through Resolution and Order Number 05-2-9-5, the County MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Commissioners approved the City's proposed improvement of River Avenue and authorized the City to assess benefiting properties outside the City limits for a portion of the improvements. Since this time, the board had received a number of contacts from land owners whose properties abutted River Avenue. These individuals had raised questions about the size, scope, and cost of the project. She reported that the board had revisited the ordinance in response to these comments on March 30, 2005, and during that review, City of Eugene Public Works Director Kurt Corey had assured the board that the council would hold a public hearing and could make modifications to the planned improvements if necessary. She stated that, after discussion, the board decided not to rescind the order, but did express its concern over the design and the overall need for the project. She conveyed the board's concerns: A) There was insufficient community involvement associated with the project; B) The project was premature, given the potential for the size and scope changes that could result from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) decisions on the Beltline Road and/or from conclusions of the River Road/Santa Clara Study; C) The size and scope of the project are greater than warranted by current and future conditions; D) The location of the bicycle path was inappropriate. Ms. Morrison thanked the council for the inter-governmental privilege. Paul Spain, 1112 Valley Butte Drive, explained that he owned property at 409 River Avenue. He was not opposed to fixing River Avenue, nor was he opposed to being assessed for improvements. He opposed the overall cost of the project. He cited, in particular, that of the $2.2 million it was slated to cost, $404,639 was included for engineering charges and another $87,965 was included for administrative fees. He questioned the validity of spending over $490,000 on "soft costs," given that the bid itself was just over twice that amount. He believed the City staff time to be valuable but thought some of that time was already paid for in tax moneys. He asked if the "soft costs" were part of the non-assessable portion of the project that was being funded by systems development charge (SDC) fees. He wondered if these costs were reduced or eliminated whether the larger amount of the SDC funding and property owners' dollars being used would go for the "hard costs." Mr. Spain did not think the project should wait until ODOT had conducted a study of the interchange, as he had heard the department would not get to it until 2008, if that. Realistically, he asserted, it could be many years before results of such a study were analyzed and construction could be planned. He predicted the costs would increase while the City waited. He felt the opportunity to cost-share the project had already passed, given that the water treatment plant had completed its water reclamation project involving some street reconstruction. He thought it unfortunate that only one design had been presented and alternate designs were not developed. He reminded the council that the dollars that were to be assessed did not grow on trees. Theresa Slocum, 621 River Avenue, owned three lots that bordered River Avenue. She reported that ODOT had already contacted the property owners in the 1990s to tell them that the entrance to Beltline Road from River Avenue did not meet safety regulations and that it was slated to be closed. She observed that the planned improvements were based on a classification of maj or collector, but ODOT was drawing up a plan to make it a dead end. In looking at the businesses on the east end of the avenue, she underscored that they were not the sorts of businesses that people walked to. She maintained that there was no bus service on River Avenue because there was no need. She cited as most important to her that the government agencies work together. She asked that the City not engage in a project that ODOT might later come in and undo. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session Lloyd Henson, 2420 Wilbur Avenue, indicated that he owned property at 795 River Avenue. He opined it was an expensive project with unnecessary bicycle paths. He pointed out that there was already a bicycle path on the south side of the wastewater management plant. He questioned the wisdom of eliminating on-street parking for vehicles while creating bicycle parking. He noted that the post office and other businesses sometimes had parking overflow onto the street. He did not think wide sidewalks were necessary. He agreed that River Avenue needed work, but disagreed with the scope of the project as proposed. Ynri Samer, 1790 Brewer Avenue, related that he commuted by bicycle to the Yujin Gakuen Japanese Immersion/Corridor School every Monday. He attested to the need for road improvements as there were potholes in the pavement and motorized vehicles in close proximity due to the lack of a shoulder. He knew from work on committees in the City that there were plans to continue River Avenue and improvements in the future on the hook that went under Beltline Road. He thought that would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to come off the bike path and avoid all of the traffic on River Road and Beltline Road, while providing an intersection of the north-south bicycle route. He added that he had witnessed senior citizens and children walking by the side of River Avenue. Mr. Samer sympathized with people who were "clobbered" with the cost of improvements. He recommended finding a different funding resource. Lewis Rucker, 87448 Territorial Road, Veneta, said he owned two parcels on River Avenue. He also agreed that River Avenue needed work. However, he averred the scope of the project was overbuilt. He thought spending $2.3 million on eight-tenths of a mile was too much. He was puzzled why the increase in gasoline taxes would not help to pay for the improvements. He stated that the man who owned low- income apartments on River Avenue had indicated that residents would pay the cost of the assessments through increased rent. Mr. Rucker asked that the project be undertaken at night in order not to hinder the businesses in the area. Mike Lawrence, 2953 Dry Creek Road, spoke on behalf of the North Eugene Faith Center, Four Square Church, located at 151 River Avenue. He explained that he had been pastor at the church for one month. He said the church was a small congregation that had owned its property for 22 years. He stated that its outreach and ministry was to some of the less economically advantaged communities on River Road and River Avenue, particularly the low-income apartments across the road from the church. He indicated that the assessments to the church could potentially cost at least two jobs. He reiterated that while the road needed improvements, it did not need improvements on the magnitude the City had proposed. He noted that he traveled the east end of the avenue several times a day and had yet to see a pedestrian beyond the post office. He registered the church's opposition to the proposed LID as currently planned. Chuck Meeker, 309 River Avenue - 333 River Avenue, owner of Clemens Marina, said the project, as designed, was "way out of control." He referred to comments by Ms. Cahill in which she had indicated that River Avenue was classified as a maj or collector street, with traffic volumes in the mid-range of the major collector standards on the west end. He reiterated that the street was .8 miles long. He thought the traffic count numbers dropped dramatically once one drove past the post office. He questioned the wisdom of spending that kind of money on the entire road, given the dearth of traffic on the east end of it. He noted, as a point of information, that McKenzie View Drive, a 6.1 mile road with 82 driveways and 15 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session guardrails, had been replaced for $827,000. It seemed to him foolish to spend $2.2 million on a road that was only .8 miles long. Daniel Hill, 863 Mint Meadow Way, Springfield, said he owned two businesses, one of which was located on River Avenue. He agreed that improvements such as curbs and gutters were needed. He noted that stormwater drainage had always been a problem on the avenue. He stated that he was an avid runner who traversed the river bike path several times per week, traveling from one of his businesses to the other. He related that in eight years, he had seen two or three pedestrians along the avenue. Regarding a connection from the bicycle path to River Road, he opined that Owosso Drive already provided a quiet connection. He predicted that greatly improving River Avenue would encourage drivers to speed. He said some drivers already drove 50 miles per hour and more as they traveled from River Road to the Beltline Road. He asked the council to please reconsider the project and seek to reduce its scope and costs. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly asked staff to respond to a piece of written testimony that suggested an alternate design for bicycle access other than on-street bike lanes. Councilor Ortiz thanked those who testified. She asked that the public hearing be extended until 5 p.m. on April 12 in order for the River Road Community Organization to submit a statement following its meeting, held concurrently with the council meeting. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to keep the public record open until 5 p.m. on April 12. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0: Councilor Poling asked what the plans were for the River Avenue underpass if access to Beltline Road was closed off. He also asked what the cost difference would be to conduct the work at night. He commented that there were many similarities between testimony on the River Avenue improvements and recent testimony on improvements that had been planned for the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard area. He averred there must be a better way to design the project. Councilor Bettman asked, if this was an access to Beltline Road, why did ODOT not have an interest in some of the right-of-way and why was it not participating financially in the project. She observed that there was no desire on the part of the property owners to move forward and wondered if there was an ability to place a moratorium on any development that would increase intensity. She also wished to know if the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission would be assessed. City Manager Taylor indicated he would look into that and provide the answers on April 20. Councilor Bettman asked why the on-street parking would be removed. She felt the on-street parking was a benefit to both residents and businesses. Continuing, Councilor Bettman observed that the stormwater utility funds were included in the funding mechanism. She felt the funds were more like a user fee and did not seem to be an appropriate funding mechanism for the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session Councilor Pap6 complimented Ms. Cahill. He said he attended one of the public information sessions. He related that the City had done a good j ob of publicizing the meeting and many people attended. He concurred with much of the testimony given at the present hearing. He thought a perfectly good bicycle path was already available south of the wastewater plant. He wished to know what the cost would be if one sidewalk was removed and if the turn lane was eliminated from the project. He asked if all bf the participants would be assessed should one sidewalk be removed from the project. He also requested that staff explain what made up the engineering and administrative costs cited in one piece of testimony. He agreed with the recommendation that at least the work on the end of the road on which the businesses were located be conducted at night. He recalled that several businesses closed when the work on the Ferry Street Bridge had been done. He wondered if any traffic calming elements had been looked into. Councilor Pap6 stressed that the City needed to keep River Avenue open because it was one of the few streets that crossed the Beltline Road in the River Road area. Councilor Solomon stated that the post office had a large frontage on River Avenue and asked if it was possible to assess them. Ms. Cahill replied that the City could not assess the post office. Councilor Solomon remarked that this was unfair given the amount of street frontage it had. Councilor Solomon acknowledged the testimony that indicated that people with properties on River Avenue were largely not conceptually opposed to the street improvements and merely wanted the scope of the project scaled down to better match the use of the street. She said they did not need "all of the frills" as it was "not an exciting street," but they did deserve safety. Councilor Taylor was alarmed at the prospect that stormwater utility fees might be used to help fund the project. City Manager Taylor drew the council's attention to the bid, made in July 2004, and pointed out that the successful low bidder was willing to extend the bid through May 2005. He said many of the options the council would like to consider involving alternatives to the design standards would require the City to re- bid the project and this could significantly affect the cost of bids. 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2005 City Manager Taylor said the ordinance reflected the council's desire to retain the existing fee structure for one more year. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak, she closed the hearing. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that there was a unanimous desire to take action on this item. Councilor Solomon asked if the proposal was simply a continuation of the existing program. City Manager Taylor replied that it did not address whether the City should expand the program and it did not have the benefit of legislative action, but it did allow the City to keep the existing structure and to keep the fees consistent with a more moderate approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session Councilor Solomon asked if there was a need to extend the deadline for the company owners to pay their bills. Glen Potter, Management Analyst for the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, responded that there had been precedents set for extending the deadline and there had been no objections to it in the past. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4898, an ordinance concerning hazardous substance user fees. Councilor Bettman asked for an update on the legislative process that sought a remedy for the cap on the fees. Mr. Potter thanked her for providing testimony to the House Environment Committee on March 31. He said he, Councilor Taylor, and Mayor Piercy had delivered the testimony. He related that Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser had indicated that the committee wanted additional information from the City and possibly some concessions such as a medium-range lifting of the cap, possibly to change it to $6,000. He noted there had also been some discussion of some legislative provision that would limit future growth in the program's budget. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: FY06-FY011 Draft Capital Improvement Program City Manager Taylor recounted that Councilor Bettman had a motion on the table. Councilor Bettman thanked staff for providing amended language that "suited" her intent. She referred to AIS page 343, Attachment B, and said the policy issues that she wanted to incorporate into the Capital Improvement Program (C[P) seemed to be addressed. She made one correction, as follows: "9. New Transportation capital projects including Transit Projects that are located within Eugene city limits..." Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to substitute Attachment B with the above noted addition, page 343 of the agenda packet, for the proposed amendments that had been tabled. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the main motion to approve the Capital Improvement Program, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. 7. ACTION: Resolution 4832 Authorizing the City Manager to Make Application to the State of Oregon for Designation of a West Eugene Enterprise Zone This item was postponed due to time constraints. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 16 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 17, February 24, and March 9, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pap6 said that prior to the council break, the council had moved to oppose any legislation having to do with facilitation of special service districts in areas of the state that might be covered by cities or counties. He noted that four of the local representatives, in cooperation with Lane County, had set forth House Bill 3301 and he agreed that, as it originally stood, it warranted the City's opposition. He said it had since been amended and indicated he wished to revise the City's position on the bill from 'oppose' to 'neutral.' Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to revise the City's position on HB 3301 from 'oppose' to 'neutral' contingent upon amending the bill by deleting subparagraph (3) of Section 2 of the bill, specifically the following language: "(3) The consent of the governing body of a city, as provided in ORS 198. 720, 198.835, or 199.462, is not required for the formation of a district or the annexation of territory within the city by the district unless the district will be authorized to construct, maintain and operate service facilities within the city limits to provide services that are provided by the city." Councilor Bettman opposed the revision. She felt the bill stood in blatant opposition of home rule. She averred that local levies would be at risk. Mr. Heuser said there was a remaining provision in the bill that, if amended or struck as the sponsors of the bill had indicated they would do, would allow overlapping service districts. Councilor Kelly said he was leery of special districts and compression. He was also concerned about the balkanization of local government by establishment of multiple service districts. He pointed out, however, that any special district would have to pass through the Metro Plan amendment process and the council held considerable control over it at that point. He commented that sometimes it was better to "take half a loaf and say thank you" if the issue was not critical or fundamental. Councilor Bettman opined that changing the City's position to 'neutral' was anathema to changing it to a vote of support from the point of view of the legislators. She said she had discussed it with two local representatives and to her it had seemed they had a lot of questions about the bill. Councilor Taylor agreed that the City's position should not be changed. She said even though the council had an opportunity to weigh in on it at the Metro Plan amendment level, it should not be perceived as supporting "bad government." MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 17 Regular Session Roll call vote; motion passed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 18 Regular Session