Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/27/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 27, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. She welcomed Councilor George Poling’s return and noted Kurt Corey was attending on behalf of City Manager Jon Ruiz. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported she had participated in the Memorial Day ceremony at West Lawn Cemetery and appreciated the opportunity to remember and honor people who had given so much for our country. Mayor Piercy said she had visited the Vet LIFT 2 collaboration between the City of Eugene and St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County to provide housing and wrap-around services for veterans. Mayor Piercy stated she had invited the public to join her in the Mayor’s one-on-one at 5:00 p.m. at Albertson’s at 311 Coburg Road on Thursday, May 29, 2008. Mayor Piercy announced papers had been signed on the Beam Development project downtown and the project was moving forward. Mayor Piercy reported the Ridgeline acquisition had taken place. Mr. Poling thanked his fellow city councilors for allowing him to be absent from recent City Council meetings. He also thanked his constituents for understanding his absence, noting he had attempted to return as many telephone calls as possible. He had been contacted by people who lived in the Autzen Stadium area about the baseball stadium and the 2010 move of the Eugene Emeralds to the stadium. Neighbors were concerned about noise and traffic. He asked if public hearings or other opportunities would be provided for public input on the proposal. Ms. Ortiz reported she had taken City Manager Jon Ruiz on a tour of Ward 7. She added a meeting would be held at Petersen Barn tomorrow night at 5:30 p.m. regarding railroad-related issues and Mr. Ruiz would attend a managers’ forum at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 29. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka congratulated Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor and Mayor Piercy for winning in the recent primary election. He was thrilled that Beam had signed the contract. He was intrigued and interested to hear that McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center was considering downtown Eugene as a possible site. The Budget Committee had been working hard, and had one remaining meeting, with an emphasis on adding patrol officers and filling pot holes. He thanked Ms. Bettman for proposing a money swap with Lane County that would benefit both the City of Eugene and Lane County. The University of Oregon arena project was proceeding. He noted over 95 percent of the materials from the Williams Bakery demolition had been recycled. The Fairmount Neighborhood appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to the Hearings Official regarding the arena conditional use permit (CUP) would be issued on June 3, 2008. He recently attended a Save Civic Stadium meeting last week and noted a website, www.savecivicstadium.org, was active. Another meeting would be held on Thursday, May 29, at 7:30 p.m. at Tsunami Books. He was distressed to see the issues raised and inappropriate comments made about Councilor Bettman on the police union website. He recently attended a conference in San Diego entitled Navigating the Carbon World. Ms. Solomon arrived t 5:40 p.m. Mr. Pryor passed. Ms. Bettman passed. Ms. Taylor reported she had the pleasure of helping cut the ribbon for the new gate at the Masonic Cemetery on May 25, 2008. The work was completed with help from the City of Eugene, the neighbors, volunteers and contributions from contractors and architects. The mausoleum was being restored with help from the City and other people. A concert would be performed by the Sacred Heart Singers on May 29, 2008. Mr. Clark had the opportunity to ask the first question at the May 23, 2008, City Club meeting of a group of young people. He congratulated and thanked Johnny Lake and students from Churchill High School and North Eugene High School, as well as people from Roosevelt High School in Portland, in response to race issues in the community. Conversations had been held to help the students grow and learn from the experience, and take the conversation to a positive place. Neighbors in Ward 5 planned to meet at Cal Young Middle School library to discuss improving Bond Lane. Ms. Solomon invited councilors to the We Are Bethel Celebration on June 7, 2008, at Petersen Barn. She said she would take City Manager Ruiz on a listening tour through Ward 6. Mr. Corey iterated he was filling in for City Manager Ruiz who was out of town. He said FY09 City Budget deliberations would continue tomorrow. Mayor Piercy noted all councilors had been given a copy of a book from Seven Stars Child Care. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring forward a proposal as soon as possible for approval by the council to place an amendment to the charter on the November 2008 ballot. The resolution, caption, question and summary shall provide for editing of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 2 Work Session charter language in Section 15.a, External Review of Police, so that in Sec- tion 1, the words “is authorized to” and the word “may” is replaced with the word “shall.” In subparagraph 2, the words “is authorized to” and the word “may” is replaced with the word “shall.” If approved by voters, this amendment of charter language shall do nothing more than edit the above words thus ensuring the ongoing and consistent functioning of the inde- pendent Police Auditor’s Office, and the Civilian Review Board (CRB). In the event it fails to pass, the current language of charter Section 15.a shall stand as written. Ms. Bettman expressed concerns over the language and implications that having a Police Auditor’s Office was an option. As political winds changed having that implication could undermine the function of the auditor’s office. Mayor Piercy appreciated the effort to tighten the language in the charter, noting that “shall” was directional and reflected what people voted for, and she would support the motion. Ms. Ortiz supported the motion on the assumption that this would go to the voters in November 2008, thus not requiring a special election that would incur additional costs. Mr. Clark noted 67 percent of the voters had spoken and it was a closed question. He would support the motion to the extent that the proposal would provide more effective language for the ordinance. He wanted to know when the resolution came back to the council if the language change substantively altered anything or if there were any caveats as to what the proposed change could imply. Mr. Zelenka saw this as a housekeeping issue, noting that prior to joining the council he assumed the Police Auditor and CRB were permanent parts of the charter rather than discretionary. He would support the motion. Mr. Poling was concerned about the cost and thought the November election would reduce any costs. He inquired about timeline and process for placing the proposal on the November 2008 ballot. City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that August 6, 2008, would be the last day for the City Council to adopt a resolution to put a measure on the ballot, after which the City Attorney had five days to prepare a ballot title. An appeal process was available if someone wished to challenge the ballot title after which the measure would move forward to the November election. Mr. Poling asked if this would open up the process to other changes in the charter by interested parties in this specific section of the charter. Mr. Lidz responded the appropriate time to propose additional changes would be when the resolution went before the council to call the election and set out the language proposed by Ms. Bettman. Council members could propose more changes prior to the resolution returning to the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Poling agreed that any changes to this section of the charter should be by the public who supported the initial charter amendment. He would support moving the issue forward at this point with the caveat that it would create no substantial charter changes. Mr. Pryor agreed with most of what had been said around the table. His support was based on the consistency point and he believed the proposed changes were consistent with the spirit of the initial charter amendment. The motion passed 8:0. Ms. Taylor stated she recently met Richard Owen, the son of the man who donated the land for the Owen Rose Garden. Mr. Owen said the family would not want the City to construct a building on the site for meetings, because the purpose of the rose garden was to be a place where people could smell the roses, be quiet and relax. B. WORK SESSION: MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM, BOUNDARY AND SELECTION CRITERIA Mr. Corey said the council had requested a work session on the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) program, and introduced Richie Weinman from Planning and Development (PDD). Mr. Weinman offered the staff report. The MUPTE program was enabled by state statute, for which the enabling legislation would sunset in 2012 unless extended during a future legislative session. The program was adopted to encourage new, higher-quality housing in the core area.. To be eligible, development must be five units or more and should provide a public benefit, as determined by the local jurisdiction. The program enables a ten-year property tax exemption on new housing. The land and any non-housing improvements continue to be taxed. The exemption applies to taxes owed to all jurisdictions because School District 4J also formally accepted the provisions. This was permissible under state law because Eugene and 4J together collect over 50 percent of local property taxes. Each application for an exemption must be approved by the council on a case by case basis. Mr. Weinman reviewed the history and criteria of the program in the City of Eugene. He then responded to questions from councilors. Mayor Piercy circulated an article from that day’s Register Guard which described the current construction activity in the university area and which illustrated the need for student housing in the area. Mr. Weinman noted two of the three apartments cited in the article were being built with MUPTE support. Ms. Ortiz stated it was important to discuss the tax exemption program, noting it was important to weigh both the public and private benefits of the program. She asked if there would be interest on the part of the council to expand the MUPTE into her ward, noting nothing had been built in the ward in a long time. She opined there needed to be other ways to attract the construction of multi-unit housing outside of the downtown area. While she understood and supported the philosophy of building student housing, she wanted to see the program connected to low-income housing because lower income people had fewer choices. Much of the low-income housing had MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 4 Work Session disappeared because land had been provided for a homeless shelter and a trailer park had been closed because of negligent care of the trailers. Mr. Weinman explained the Housing Dispersal Policy that applied to family housing. Land bank sites were not being purchased nor were subsidies currently provided for family housing in areas that were already 50 percent low-income. Much of the area in Ms. Ortiz’ proposal was already at the 50 percent level and new subsidized housing had not been pursued in that area.. A 20-year low income tax exemption is available. However, the economics of subsidized and low-income housing is that it takes more than tax exemptions to achieve that goal. With the 10- year MUPTE tax exemption, some low-income housing may be built if rents are high enough, but it is difficult to achieve in most neighborhoods. There is currently a low vacancy rate in Eugene which makes it difficult for low-income people to compete for the limited commodity. Ms. Bettman distributed two maps provided by Mr. Weinman, illustrating the Proposed MUPTE Boundary Expansion/Downtown Plan Area (blue map) and Proposed MUPTE Boundary Expansion/Old MUPTE Boundary (yellow map) areas. She said the MUPTE program was predicated on the assumption that properties would not otherwise be developed. Market factors and variables in the West University Neighborhood (WUN) impact development. Ms. Bettman said there was development in that neighborhood, as reported by an article in that day’s Register Guard, noting there were 900 University of Oregon (UO) freshman who did not have campus housing, in addition to other undergraduate and graduate students. The pressure of those housing needs was placed on the community. The City should not forego tax revenue where the market supported housing construction, but the playing field should be leveled where code barriers made construction challenging. Everyone should pay their share of taxes. Ms. Taylor said there was a big demand for housing in the university neighborhood and it would be built with or without a tax break. Everyone should pay taxes. She preferred going back to the pre-2004 MUPTE boundary because there was a benefit to filling the empty space downtown, and she was not willing to expand the boundary. Mr. Clark was challenged with the pre-2004 boundary that came away from the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) property as illustrated on the map, and created a disincentive for anything that might occur regarding a dense core around what might one day be built on the EWEB property, taking an option off the property. He considered the 900 incoming UO freshmen to be new members of the community who needed to be served with the appropriate housing choice, whether on or off campus, and did not consider them to be a cost of the university. He asked what the functional impact of ending MUPTE around the university would be. Based on his conversations with real estate professionals, Mr. Weinman believed there would be less construction. He understood that some of the projects were built without MUPTE because of the but for requirement, because developers had owned the land for a long time or had paid a below market rate for the land. With the current value of land at $60 to $80 per square foot, housing construction was no longer viable without the economic incentive. Some people had purchased properties with the intention of building knowing the MUPTE incentive was available. This knowledge of construction costs is supported by staff analysis of proposals for low-income housing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Clark opined the City would be acting in bad faith if policies stated the intent to incentivize creation of density in the core and around the university, encouraging people to buy properties with the idea that they would be able to build housing, after which the City changed the rules making development no longer affordable. He was concerned that the boundaries could be changed at this point. He added he would not be opposed to the idea of extending the boundary into Ms. Ortiz’s ward, and welcomed more conversation on the issue. Mr. Pryor was intrigued by the nature of the discussion as it applied to the structural nature of the MUPTE rather than the reactionary nature. He noted a year from now, the Register Guard headline could be very different, adding the real estate market fluctuated. He proposed having a thoughtful structure in place around MUPTE that provided the ability to use it when needed. He asked if having MUPTE in place required its use, recalling that the council had voted not to use it in some situations in the past. Mr. Weinman confirmed MUPTE use was not required. Mr. Pryor asked if criteria or restrictions could be placed on MUPTE that would allow the council to offer circumstances under which MUPTE use would be available, and those under which it would not. He was less inclined to shrink, reduce or eliminate the possibility of use of MUPTE under any circumstance rather than provide more stringent criteria under which it could be used. Thus, expanding MUPTE into other areas could serve a structural benefit if good criteria were in place. He speculated that the application or use of MUPTE might be shifted from its original intent over time. He was reluctant to completely eliminate it as a tool, since there might be unforeseen circumstances in which the council would want to use it, and it would be a great deal of work to reimpose it. He fully supported control and strict standards, but did not support applying it simply because someone wanted it. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Weinman cited the downtown projects that had been built with MUPTE: Tate Condominiums, Broadway Place, and High Street Terrace. He th added WestTown on 8 was a low-income project that had received a 20 year low-income tax exemption. Ms. Solomon hoped councilors would not think that eliminating MUPTE in the university area would somehow drive up MUPTE-supported housing downtown, noting it clearly was not happening for a number of reasons in addition to parking and code issues previously mentioned. The same code, infrastructure and parking issues existed in the university area. She did not want the university area which still had a great deal of sorry-looking housing to be cut out. It was exciting to see new projects going up and she did not want MUPTE eliminated to drive up downtown development. She was pleased to support the boundary extension, noting land prices were going up and properties inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) were becoming scarcer. Expanding the MUPTE boundary would accomplish council goals in that part of town. MUPTE was only part of the picture and had been beneficial to the City. Many of the properties approved by previous councils were back on the tax rolls and were a huge benefit to the City. Mr. Zelenka said the goal of MUPTE was to stimulate multi-unit housing adding the boundaries had changed several times according to circumstances and to what the market was doing in various areas warranting a change in the boundary. He noted MUPTE was never guaranteed. He voted against recent applicants because he felt the developments would have been built without MUPTE. Staff research indicated that 321 units had been built during a recent three- year period MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 6 Work Session of which only 29-30 percent was built with MUPTE. The UO had not historically provided new housing while it did have plans for future student housing development. The demand for the university area would continue to grow. The City was currently facing a budget deficit and he did not want to give away money where it was not necessary. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about why the area around Sixth Avenue and Seventh Avenue in the Trainsong neighborhood was included in MUPTE, Mr. Weinman said Ms. Ortiz had made that request and it presented an opportunity to redevelop deteriorating properties. Mr. Zelenka said the area in northwest Eugene needed stimulus to provide multi-unit housing. Ms. Bettman wanted to incentivize where it was not attractive or profitable to build housing. The proposed addition requested by Ms. Ortiz worked for Ms. Bettman because this was an area of interest for the next Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route in Eugene which would be a great compli- ment to multi-unit housing that was not currently being built. She was not interested in regulating for quality standards, preferring that those issues be addressed in the code. She was concerned that affordable and low-income older houses were being torn down in the WUN. She asked if existing housing would be torn down in northwest Eugene under the proposed expansion displacing low-income people. She asserted it was about tax breaks and not development, and everyone should pay taxes. Mr. Weinman concurred that demolition of older homes and new construction in the university area cost more, adding the proposal was likely to occur on the west side as well. Typically redeveloped and new rentals tended to cost more per month than older rentals. Mr. Clark asserted the question was one of density policy. Everything the council did had an effect on what was or was not built in the community, and drove what and where development occurred regardless of whether it was incentives, regulation or density policy. He opined that without MUPTE some things would not be built, but with it or without it, development occurred, with a variety of impacts. People in the industry had told him that without MUPTE the only way to make a project profitable was to make it taller, with more bedrooms per unit, and increase the th parking load on the street, similar to what was occurring at 19 Avenue and Alder. He asked if without MUPTE more of that type of development would occur. Mr. Weinman responded that there was an increased chance that development that occurred would be of lesser quality. Development was difficult with an incentive and without an incentive there would either be no development or something of lesser quality. This was one of the reasons that the council adopted quality standards in the past. Mr. Clark said this was not about profitability, because people in the business of developing housing needed to make money or they would not stay in business. The question was what they could afford to build: either those things that worked well and fit with the City’s policy regula- tions and direction, or those things which created more problems. Ms. Taylor emphasized MUPTE was never a guarantee but had been interpreted as such over time. She said everyone should pay taxes, and the only way she would support exempting people from taxes for ten years was if there was a very clear benefit to the City and the community as a MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 7 Work Session whole, and not the builder. The council could contribute to homelessness by encouraging people through incentives to build multi-family housing. We would no longer have run-down single room occupancy (SRO) development, the kinds of places that were not the best, but affordable, and better than being on the streets. She definitely wanted to get rid of the university area tax exemption, and wanted to take more time to think about the extension. Responding to Ms. Solomon, Mr. Weinman said MUPTE could be used for rehabilitation if it was an extensive rehabilitation project that created five or more units. Ms. Solomon said, in addition to previously cited reasons, while looking at the applications previously approved, it appeared that 95 percent of the applicants were local people investing back in the community, which was important to her. She noted local bankers, realtors and contractors were part of this investment pool, living in the community, wanting to make a difference and invest in the community, and yield a greater benefit to the City in the end. It was not unreasonable to partner with them through this program. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to conduct a public hearing on an amendment to the MUPTE ordinance to incorporate the changes identified in attachments A and C-3. th Mr. Zelenka stated the developer of the 19 Avenue and Alder Street project had modified the project from seven to four stories, and was providing one parking space per unit, which was more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. He understood that the Portland metropolitan area used a program similar to MUPTE for transit routes, which would be similar to what would occur in Eugene if the proposed LTD EmX route was built in west Eugene. He asserted MUPTE was not about partnering but about adding incentive to create something that would not otherwise occur. In the WUN, what was occurring had occurred and would continue to do so without the incentives. In tough budget times, the City could not afford providing incentives where they were not needed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the boundary to not include the West University Neighborhood for the public hearing. Ms. Bettman sought clarification of Mr. Zelenka’s amendment. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the boundary to not include the West University Neighborhood for the public hearing, and to include the downtown area plus Sixth Avenue and Seventh Ave- nue, Highway 99, and Trainsong. Mr. Lidz explained the relationship of the two maps previously offered by Ms. Bettman to the main motion. Ms. Bettman said she was referring to the blue map. Mr. Pryor declined to accept Mr. Zelenka’s amendment as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said she would support the amendment because exempting taxes for ten years in the university area shifted the tax burden to other City taxpayers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz wanted separate motions for the extension of MUPTE, retraction of the university area, and the criteria for the standards. She wanted to hear what the community had to say about standards. Additionally, she invited other councilors to tour her ward and neighborhood at anytime to see the challenges in her community. Mr. Clark clarified his previous comments regarding the map and EWEB properties. He had misread the map and his comments were based upon that misreading. He was troubled by the continued discussion that somehow everybody else bore the cost of implementing MUPTE which he considered nonsensical. Responding to questions from Mr. Clark, Mr. Weinman said eleven of eighteen properties that had come off the tax rolls had been returned. Mr. Weinman said the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) included a table of the last four properties that had come back onto the tax rolls that illustrated: ? annual property tax prior to MUPTE ? revenue lost on removed improvement in year one and estimated 10-year total ? total tax paid on land during MUPTE exemption ? average tax paid annually during MUPTE ? current annual tax paid on land and improvements Mr. Clark averred that a substantive amount of tax revenues now coming into the City would not be coming in without MUPTE. The net effect was a much greater amount of money coming to the City. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Ortiz for raising the issue of expanding the boundaries, which previous councilors had not been willing to do. He supported extending the boundary to the north and west, and supported sending it to a public hearing. He was dismayed by the comment that by granting a MUPTE, the council increased other peoples’ taxes. It was wrong and misleading, and not what occurred. The public benefit had been discussed numerous times in the past. He was opposed to reducing the current MUPTE area and removing the WUN. Reading from a table in the AIS, Ms. Solomon said Hilyard House paid $3,357 annually in property taxes when the property was removed from the tax rolls in 1996, and now paid $31,320 annually in property taxes. This had been a huge benefit to the City. During the same ten-year exemption period, the revenue lost was $23,704. She would not support the amendment because she did not support limiting the purpose of the public hearing to presume that the WUN was out and the only focus of the discussion was the Downtown Plan boundary and the extension. She did not want to limit public discussion on the issue. Related to the public benefit, she agreed with Mr. Poling, that this had been discussed in the past. There were already standards in place that should be adhered to. Mr. Zelenka theorized that reducing the boundary was due to the fact that development was happening in WUN, iterating that 70 percent of the units built there during the last three years had not used MUPTE. The area would continue to be redeveloped based on student demand and market conditions. Tax dollars were being given away for something that was going to happen anyway. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Piercy said she was struggling with the concept of using tax incentives to get certain outcomes, but not offering these incentives when the council felt they might not be needed. She thought payback over time was beneficial and thought the benefit could be realized now with the use of MUPTE. She was willing to reduce the area and see if it continued to move forward, move it into a different area, and keep the downtown area. If unintended or unanticipated results occurred, they could be addressed in the future. Ms. Bettman said MUPTE was not just a tax giveaway from the City’s General Fund, but also impacted Lane County and the school districts. When properties came back on the tax rolls, the lost revenues were not made up. Mr. Clark asked how difficult it would be to reinstate MUPTE boundaries if they were reduced. Mr. Weinman responded that a City Council ordinance would be required to reinstate MUPTE boundaries. Mr. Poling had three questions that staff could respond to in memorandum form prior to the public hearing. Referring to the 70 percent of developments built without MUPTE cited by Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Poling asked how many projects had been applied for and denied, but built anyway? Of the 30 percent that were built with MUPTE, how many would not have been built without MUPTE? How many applications were submitted, turned down and nothing was built? Mr. Clark asked of those that were turned down, how were the plans substantively altered in terms of what was actually built before being built without MUPTE? Ms. Bettman asked for clarification in memorandum form prior to the public hearing on whether construction of five units during rehabilitation was above and beyond existing units, or the units most recently torn down. Ms. Taylor said she would vote for the amendment but would not vote for any expansion beyond the pre-2004 boundary. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the amendment. The vote on the amendment passed 5:4, Councilors Bettman, Taylor, Ze- lenka, and Ortiz and Mayor Piercy voting in favor; Councilors Clark, Poling, Pryor and Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz left at 1:15 p.m. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Weinman said the City did not monitor MUPTE documentation after the fact. She asked that the information be provided prior to the public hearing. The amended motion passed 6:1, with Councilors Pryor, Clark, Poling, Taylor, Bettman, and Zelenka voting in favor, and Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 10 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: FIREWORKS REGULATIONS Deputy Chief Joe Zaludek, Fire and Prevention Section, provided the staff report. He reviewed the background of the issue, noting no formal action had been taken by the council on previous correspondence from Fire and EMS staff. The deadline for submitting retail sales permit applications to the State Fire Marshal’s Office for the current retail period scheduled run from June 23 through July 7, 2008, was April 15. Permitted retailers were currently well into their purchases for fireworks inventory and other preparations for this season. The Eugene 2008 Olympic Track and Field Trials were scheduled for June 27 through July 6. There was a staffing conflict due to the extraordinary requirements for all area public safety agencies for the trials, which meant there were not sufficient Fire or Police resources available to sustain a concerted enforcement program for the 2008 Fourth of July fireworks season. Additionally, the River Road patchwork of jurisdictions would create an enforcement and political challenge with neighbors being subject to conflicting regulations for the same activity, and currently there was no interest in fireworks ordinance changes on the part of Springfield. Mr. Zaludek said in 2007, 32 permits were issued with the City for retail fireworks sales. The State Fire Marshal’s Office documents fire works damage. In 2007, over $1 million in damage was caused by fireworks and over 10,000 injuries were reported in the State of Oregon. Approximately 50 percent of those injured were 15 years old and younger, and 95 percent of the injuries resulted from safe and sane fireworks. Mr. Zaludek asserted it would be very challenging to pursue changes to fireworks regulations other than with a regional plan that addressed the entire area, similar to the Seattle and Flagstaff areas. A regional plan was currently under consideration in Washington, D.C. Mr. Clark thanked staff for the background information. He had chaired the Active 20-30 Club Freedom Festival fireworks show held at Autzen Stadium for a number of years, and Alton Baker Park more recently. He noted enforcement problems with illegal fireworks in his ward last year. He did not think the problem was with legal fireworks, but rather an enforcement problem with illegal fireworks. Mr. Pryor asked if statistics were available for complaints related to legal versus illegal fireworks. Anecdotally, the vast majority of complaints he received were related to big, loud, explosive, illegal fireworks that theoretically could not be purchased legally in Oregon. He was also concerned that at this late date, vendors had purchased their inventories in preparation for sale, and any action by the council at this point could create an enormous financial burden in an a area that was not the basis for the complaint. He concurred with Mr. Clark that the issue was an enforcement issue rather than a sale issue. Mr. Pryor further expressed concern about the length of time fireworks resonate throughout the community and wished to see some effort to regulate this time. Ms. Ortiz returned at 1:25 p.m. Mr. Zaludek opined a majority of complaints result from illegal fireworks. There is concern with the use of fireworks and the potential for a fire in the south hills or interface areas that could expand to other homes. Mayor Piercy inquired about the types of enforcement that occurred around the Fourth of July. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Zaludek stated the Eugene Police Department (EPD) recently conducted a training session regarding the applicable Eugene Code and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Although EPD would enforce applicable laws, they had a limited enforcement capacity on the streets, particularly with the Olympic Trials occurring during the same time period. The City of Portland invested approximately $10,000 annually for the Fire Marshal and police officers to team up to provide enforcement in the Portland area. Ms. Taylor said it was too late to do anything this year, but she received many complaints from south Eugene and other areas because people are concerned about a fire in the south hills area. She was disappointed the issue had not come to the council sooner, as she had hoped fireworks could be limited to one day this year. She asked if legal fireworks were quiet? Mr. Zaludek said the legal fireworks were not always quiet, but many of the extremely loud ones heard for days were either remanufactured from legal fireworks or illegal fireworks that caused many of the very loud percussion booms that had a negative impact on people and animals. Ms. Taylor wished to consider Council Option 2, Engage Lane County and the City of Springfield in developing regional strategy now for next year. She thought a regional policy and a time limitation would be good. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zaludek said in Flagstaff, Arizona, an extravagant professional laser light show took place, in lieu of fire works, eliminating the loud noise and fire danger. Mr. Zelenka had no problem with legal fireworks, but opined the illegal ones were getting out of hand. In the past, fireworks were heard on the Fourth of July, but they had expanded to the week before and the week after, and much later than the 10:00 p.m. hour when people were supposed to be quiet. He asked if there were ways to increase the cost of fireworks by one cent to raise funds to cover the costs of additional enforcement. He was also concerned about fire potential in the south hills and asked if fireworks could be banned. Mr. Zaludek said it did not appear there was a need for a ban this year, but the Fire and EMS staff should come to the council if it thought there was a severe fire danger due to draught or other conditions. He was interested in exploring enforcement and a regional strategy. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Fire Chief Randy Groves confirmed that fireworks in the th south hills, south of 18 Avenue, had been banned in 1995 due to severe draught conditions. Ms. Ortiz said although she had problems with illegal fireworks, she was challenged with the enforcement issue. In her neighborhood, as in others, there were problems with the big booms spread over many days. Returning veterans had problems and many people left town for a week or so to get away from the noise. She wondered if Springfield would be willing to talk about this, and if Springfield would have the same feeling. She was willing to investigate the issue with Springfield. She added the use of legal fireworks by children should be monitored by adults. She cautioned about going down the road of expecting the police to enforce numerous complaints. Mr. Poling concurred no action should be taken this year, but was in favor of exploring the regional approach. As a former law enforcement officer, he knew the nightmare of navigating the patchwork of jurisdictions. He concurred the problem was not the legal fireworks, but rather the illegal fireworks and the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 12 Work Session people that use them. He said the council was missing the point when considering limiting the time during which fireworks could be used. He said we were not the only culture that celebrated holidays by use of fireworks and it was wrong to limit when legal fireworks could be used. The vendors generally did a good job of monitoring the sale of fireworks. Mr. Zaludek explained that any firework which could rise higher than six feet and explode was illegal. The challenge was that such fireworks could be purchased legally in Washington and Idaho, and transported across state lines into Oregon. th Mr. Clark understood officers were swamped around July 4, but thought there needed to be a coordinated, extra response. He wanted to look at creative ways to address the issue this year if possible. He also wanted to turn this into a positive community celebration, with the City of Eugene encouraging people to go to the larger celebrations, rather than staying in their neighborhoods, and by creating a broad, open area for people to use their fireworks which could be well-monitored. Mayor Piercy liked the positive direction of the conversation, noting the education piece was important. She agreed the issue needed to be addressed now for next year. She thought a regional approach was a good idea, but there were likely other non-regulatory things which could be done locally and would be effective. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Zaludek said only EPD could cite and enforce regulations. He added enforcement by a Deputy Fire Marshal would require a change in ordinance. Because of large block parties and the potential for confrontation, police were often called to conduct enforcement. Ms. Solomon expressed frustration with the issue of citizens getting short-changed as a result of the Olympic Trials and she resented the fact that none of the police or firefighters from all of the public safety agencies could help the City out on the Fourth of July because they would be wrapped up in the trials. She asked if a phone number could be set up to receive calls or if police volunteers could be used to cite or take down names and addresses of locations where illegal fireworks were being used. She expected the City could do more than was laid out in the AIS. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that at the earliest convenience, the City of Eugene engage in conversations with Lane County and the City of Spring- field to develop a regional strategy for greater enforcement of illegal fireworks. The motion passed 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 13 Work Session