Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of MinutesEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: June 13, 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 18, 2005, Process Session, April 19, 2005, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, April 27, 2005, Work Session, May 9, 2005, Work Session, May 9, 2005, City Council Meeting, May 11, 2005, Work Session, May 18, 2005 Work Session, and May 23, 2005, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. April 18, 2005, Process Session B. April 19, 2005, Joint Elected Officials Meeting C. April 27, 2005, Work Session D. May 9, 2005, Work Session E. May 9, 2005, City Council Meeting F. May 11, 2005, Work Session G. May 18, 2005, Work Session H. May 23, 2005, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050613\S0506132A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom Room--Eugene Public Library April 18, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She recognized Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the City's position on House Bill 2608 to Priority 3, Oppose. Mr. Kelly noted his support for the motion for the reasons cited by Human Rights Program and Eugene Police Department staff. From the standpoint of public safety, he said that people in the country illegally would drive anyway and under current law had the opportunity to secure a license and insurance and must demonstrate an ability to drive. From the standpoint of human rights, he found it offensive to mandate a gatekeeper process at the Department of Motor Vehicles for a basic necessity for both citizens and non- citizens alike. Ms. Taylor indicated opposition to the motion, saying that the bill did not require a person to be a citizen to receive a license. She though people who were in the country should be here legally. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Kelly that Human Rights Manager Greg Rikhoff and Ellwood Cushman of the Eugene Police Department recommended that the City take a position opposing the bill. Mr. Pap6 said the committee considered the staff recommendation and voted 2:1 to take a position of support with amendments that removed the element related to current citizens from the bill. Mr. Poling said driving was a privilege, not a right. He pointed out that people could use driver's licenses for other forms of identification. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that if people were to drive in the state they should be in the country legally. Mr. Pap6 indicated his concurrence with Mr. Poling. He asked about the status of the bill. Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston said the bill had a hearing on March 23 but since then, there had been no amendments offered or action taken. City Manager Dennis Taylor believed the bill was dead. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Ortiz agreed that driving was a privilege, but she opposed the bill because she believed it set people up to fail by stipulating they must be legal with regard to their residency status. She said people should be MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 1 Process Session encouraged to obey the law but the State should not create barriers to letting people live here and be part of the community. She pointed out that all were immigrants once. Mr. Pryor asked why the bill was being proposed, and what problem it was attempting to address. Ms. Bettman indicated the bill was one of several targeted at the immigrant population. She said that outside the human rights and public safety issues the bill raised, she objected to it because it was aimed at a powerless group. City Manager Taylor indicated the bill was spurred by a nationwide movement related to homeland security. He agreed the bill raised human rights and public safety issues, as the City wanted people to have licenses when they drove. Mayor Piercy asked the councilors to consider the implications of their votes. She believed the issue could be controversial in the community. Mr. Kelly said there were probably hundreds of people in the community with uncertain legal status who are currently driving. He wanted to ensure such individuals know how to drive so they could pass a licensing test. He believed there was a basic hypocrisy that companies in the community were willing to employ undocumented workers while other segments of the community, as represented through the bill, were considering denying them licenses. Mr. Pryor asked if the City needed to take a position on the bill. Mr. Pap6 believed it should. Ms. Solomon expressed concern the discussion was taking place at a process session rather than at a regular meeting as she was not prepared to address the issue at this time. In response to Mr. Kelly's remarks, Mr. Pap6 suggested that most companies insisted on legal documenta- tion of their employees as a matter of principle. Ms. Taylor said her concern about the bill was based on her belief that someone in the country illegally should not have a driver's license. She suggested the item be tabled. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to table the item. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no. 1. Subcommittee Update: Vision and Goals Statement The process session was facilitated by Greta Utecht and Alicia Hayes of Lane County. Mayor Piercy called the council's attention to the vision and goals statements, included in the meeting packet as Attachment A. She thanked the members of the ad hoc committee who assisted in its prepara- tion, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon, and acknowledged the contributions of Ms. Walston and former councilor Ken Tollenaar, particularly for his work on the goals statements. CURRENT VISION STATEMENT Eugene is a regional center for education, culture and commerce, and a comfortable, attractive and affordable place to live and work. We value the variety of our safe, livable neighborhoods MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 2 Process Session and the beauty of our landscapes. We respect the perspectives and lifestyles of our active and di- verse citizenry. We strive to provide sound, open government and to deliver effective, efficient services. PROPOSED VISION STATEMENT Eugene is a community that values its people and their participation in our government. This means a respect and appreciation for diversity, educational and cultural assets, equity, justice, and social well-being. We embrace our differences as the source of our strength, and the basis for our success. We are also a community that values our physical assets and natural resources. Eugene's vision is to sustain its clean water, breathable air, beautiful parks and open spaces, livable and safe neighborhoods, and maintain a vibrant downtown. Eugene further values a strong and vibrant economy. Prosperity is the engine that drives our community's future. Our vision is to ensure that every person can achieve financial security, en- joy the fruits or their labor, and operate within a sustainable economic structure. Ms. Hayes solicited comments on the proposed draft vision statement. · Second sentence in first paragraph: "education and cultural assets" doesn't fit "this means" · What does the new statement add? · Would not delete second sentence, simply rephrase "this includes" · "Prosperity" is problematic--definition? · Use of"community" in regard to the vision statement may be wider than what council/City can impact ? Perhaps use of"we" may be more appropriate. Councilors briefly discussed the value and use of the vision statement. Ms. Bettman termed the statement an "apple pie" sort of thing and questioned its utility with regard to the council's decision-making. Mr. Pryor emphasized that the subcommittee had attempted to capture the input of the council but found it impossible to do so in just a few words. The first paragraph attempted to capture the council's vision of the community, or the people who live here; the second paragraph attempted to capture the council's vision of its sense of Eugene as a place; the third paragraph attempted to capture the nature of prosperity and how citizens could be prosperous. Mayor Piercy disagreed about the value of the statement, saying she believed the vision statement was important and what was before the council reflected what the subcommittee had heard from the council. She wanted to be able to reference the statement in the future. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mayor Piercy about the value of the statement, saying she believed in the vision and goals. She suggested it would be helpful to have it printed in Spanish. City Manager Taylor assured the council that the staff employed the vision statement in many ways and MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 3 Process Session employees were aware of it. He believed it guided what the City strove to become. Councilors agreed that the subcommittee would take the input received and incorporate it into the statement, as well as ensure consistency in the use of syntax and structure. CURRENT GOAL STATEMENTS Ms. Hayes noted the council's current goal statements. SAFE COMMUNITY A safe community where people feel secure and respected SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A community that retains a high quality of life and a healthy economy, effectively links land use and transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environ- ment HEALTHY NATURAL AND B UIL T ENVIRONMENT A community that conserves and enhances the natural environment andprovides an attractive and healthy place to live ACCESSIBLE AND THRIVING CULTURE AND RECREATION A community that offers a wide variety ofopportunitiesforpositive cultural, recreational and educational development for all EFFECTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT A local government that works openly and respectfully with and for everyone in the community FAIR, STABLE AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES A local government whose ongoingfinancial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of taxation and other revenue sources and are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal ser- vices PROPOSED GOAL STATEMENTS Ms. Hayes called attention to the proposed goal statements. SAFE COMMUNITY A community where people feel safe valued and welcomed. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT A community that meets its present environmental, economic and social needs without compro- mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. ACCESSIBLE AND THRIVING CULTURAL AND RECREATION A community that recognizes that the arts and outdoors are integral to the social and economic well-being of the community and should be available to all. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 4 Process Session EFFECTIVE ACCO UNTABLE MUNICIPAL GO VERNMENT A government that works openly, collaboratively and fairly with the community to achieve meas- urable outcomes FAIR, STABLE AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES A government whose on-goingfinancial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of revenues and is adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services Ms. Hayes solicited comments on the draft vision goals. Mr. Kelly called the council and staff's attention to some minor errors in the statements, which Ms. Hayes recorded. Councilors expressed general satisfaction with the goal statements, offering the following comments for possible change: · New sustainable development needs to reference healthy and natural built environment · "Measurable outcomes" ? Positive outcomes? Demonstrate public benefit? Mr. Pryor indicated that "measurable outcomes" was included to address the issue of government accountability. Mr. Kelly said he would not object to its deletion as not all things could be measured, although he would like to see quantification of more of the things that could be measured. Ms. Solomon supported the inclusion of the phrase for the reasons stated by Mr. Pryor. She reminded the council of the aspirational nature of the statements. City Manager Taylor indicated he would schedule the vision statement and goals statements for adoption following further refinement by the subcommittee. Ms. Bettman asked that the revised draft be sent to councilors prior to that date. 2. Boards and Commissions Process Ms. Walston was present for the item. She recalled the council's discussion of the issue at its last process session and its direction to staff to develop a proposal for the boards and commissions process. She reviewed a draft short-term proposal to be implemented between April and September 2005. Councilors discussed the short-term proposal. Mr. Kelly did not support having a profile for candidates. He questioned whether the council could interview candidates in executive session given that the issue was related to personnel. He suggested the supplemental questions be included in the application. He asked if a candidate receiving five votes in the straw poll should be interviewed or appointed. Regarding the guidelines for interviews, Mr. Kelly favored allowing the councilors to ask follow-up questions of candidates. Ms. Taylor wanted staffto provide the council with the questions to be asked of candidates prior to the interviews. She suggested the council seek input about candidates for advisory groups such as the Planning Commission from the commission. She agreed with Mr. Kelly about follow-up questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 5 Process Session Ms. Bettman said that the council should be clear if it was voting to appoint or interview an individual. She was okay with either approach as long as the outcome was clear. She also agreed about incorporating the supplemental questions into the application and about the value of follow-up questions. She determined from Ms. Walston that staff found that working with the current members of boards and commissions was a good way to solicit new members. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Kelly that profiles were not necessary. He determined from Ms. Walston that the supplemental questions could be included in the application without a large cost. Ms. Solomon indicated acceptance of follow-up questions but wanted to ensure that they were held until the end of the interview and asked if time allowed. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Kelly about the need for greater clarity about the number of votes required to interview/appointment a candidate. With regard to the profile, he also agreed with Mr. Kelly, and suggested it would be more useful for the council to have an informational sheet outlining the responsibili- ties of the position to be filled. Councilors discussed the number of votes needed to interview a candidate as opposed to the number of votes needed to either reappoint or appoint a candidate outright. Ms. Walston recalled that in the past years, the council agreed to interview all candidates receiving three votes. She suggested the council consider setting a threshold of four votes to reappoint candidates. Ms. Solomon suggested that five votes be required for an appointment. Mr. Pryor suggested that all candidates receiving at least three votes be interviewed as he questioned how the council could knowingly appoint a candidate without conducting such an interview. Ms. Bettman also questioned how the council could get to know a candidate without an interview. She asked how fair it was to appoint a candidate with five votes to those who reapplied. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the time commitment but pointed out that citizens were also committing their time. Ms. Taylor did not presume that someone would automatically be appointed unless they were known to the council. She suggested that the threshold for an interview be four votes. She added that the interview process had improved since she first took her seat on the council. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need to interview all candidates, even those receiving five votes, saying it took more time, but the positions involved were important. He liked the idea of employing a different process for the reappointment process in which a candidate reapplying for a position would be reappointed with five votes. He did not support raising the number of votes for those to be interviewed from three to four as he thought that directly connected to the issue of diversifying the applicant pool. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the schedule proposed by Ms. Walston would mean the council would be interviewing candidates during the budget season. Councilors broke into three groups consisting of Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor (Group 1); Mr. Kelly, Mayor Piercy, and Mr. Poling (Group 2); and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Pap6 (Group 3). Ms. Utecht asked the three groups to discuss what the outcome of a completely successful boards and MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 6 Process Session commissions process would be, and to attempt to identify three priority issues. She said that Ms. Walston would employ the input as she developed options for medium- and long-term strategies. Mayor Piercy called for a brief meeting break. After the break, the council reconvened and reported on the work of the small groups. Group 1 · Boards and commissions that are reflective of the community, with every neighborhood, ward, age, socioeconomic strata, and ethnicity represented. · Eliminate department advisory committees and regional committees requiring City financial support for questionable or negligible benefit (like the Public Safety Coordinating Council). · Restore the Citizen Involvement Committee. Group 2 · More committee members from historically under-represented demographics. · Engaged (fully) members on committee. · No one who has applied feels insulted or humiliated by the process. Group 3 · Want boards and commissions that are representative-- Geographic Ethnic Socioeconomic Education levels Age · Commissioners who are passionate (about committee work), thoughtful, and committed to a group process · Awareness of boards and commissions--what they do and how to apply--get bigger pool of applicants Ms. Utecht noted that each group had identified diversity as an issue, so there appeared to be six outcomes listed. Ms. Utecht asked if the council saw any item that had a direct application to the short-term or long-term strategies. Ms. Bettman suggested that the issue of regional committees, such as the Public Safety Coordinating Council, could be addressed in the short term. Mayor Piercy believed that the restoration of the Citizen Involvement Committee and the issue of the department advisory committees and the PSCC were policy issues rather than process issues. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council hold three different work sessions, one related to process, one related to the department advisory committees, and one related to the regional committees. He wanted to discuss the roles and missions of the department advisory committees and regional committees before deciding MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 7 Process Session whether to eliminate them. Ms. Solomon suggested that the McKenzie Watershed Council, Lane Regional Air Pollution Agency, Lane County Local Govermnent Boundary Commission, and Lane Council of Governments were other regional groups the council should discuss. Mr. Kelly added the Region 2050 Steering Committee to the list of regional groups. 3. Priority Issues Update~Action Planning City Manager Taylor provided the update. He said that he intended to create multi-department teams for each of the council's eight priority issues. Each executive had taken one of the issues as part of his or her portfolio and would lead the effort. Each team would prepare a draft action plan based on the council's brainstorm at the February retreat. The plans would have a three- to five-year planning horizon. City Manager Taylor said that he would return with the plans in a series of work sessions. He believed that some of the plans would be relatively easy and ready to go fairly quickly. Other plans, such as "launching a neighborhood initiative" and "developing a strategy to help the homeless," were more complicated would take longer to complete. City Manager Taylor called the council's attention to Attachment D in the meeting packet, which was a template for the action plans. He anticipated that the action plans would be developed by the end of the summer, and the council would review them throughout the fall. He said the action plans would form the basis for future budget decision packages. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the template. However, he was very disappointed by the time line proposed by the City Manager. He said the council had held its goal-setting session 1-1/2 months earlier, and it would be six months after that discussion occurred before the council would see the draft action plans. He acknowledged that some plans would be more complicated, but it was his expectation that the council would see initial steps on all the goals by June 2005. City Manager Taylor suggested that the time line would be affected by the amount of time the council spent on each plan. He believed that even if the review began in July, the effort would extend into the fall. Mr. Pap6 concurred with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. He suggested the council hold extra work sessions if it was necessary to get through the review more quickly. City Manager Taylor said the neighborhood initiative would be complex and take some time. He anticipated the discussion on a new city hall would also be complex but would not take so long due to the work that had already been done. The hospital goal was in process and there would be probably be some results to point to in the summer. The police review question would move fairly quickly after the public process occurred, but it would take the council some time to work through all the related issues. The arts and outdoors goal would be easier to achieve than the neighborhood initiative. Fire Station 9 would largely be a matter of when the council wanted to move forward. The homeless issue was the most complex and would take the longest amount of time. City Manager Taylor said some plans could come forward sooner than later, but it would be problematic to try to get them all to the council before fall. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 8 Process Session Ms. Ortiz acknowledged that the needed staff work would take time. However, she was concerned about the homeless issue and indicated she would be willing to fast track that issue and hold more meetings in order to be prepared to act in time for the following winter and offer the community something tangible, such as the homeless camp the City once operated. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the budget was based on current service levels and all the ideas that came from the action plans were likely to be implemented in the next fiscal year. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Ortiz about the need to address the homeless issue before the next winter. She noted that her highest priority was the neighborhood initiative. She expressed concern that staff was currently working on policy initiatives, such as the downtown housing policy and mixed-use center, that were related to the work the council would do later on the action plans. She believed it was inefficient for the policy direction from the council to come after the development of those initiatives. She questioned how anything could take precedence over a unanimous council vote and asked if she needed to request a work session on each goal. Ms. Taylor believed that the neighborhood initiative should permeate everything the City did. In regard to the issue ofhomelessness, Ms. Taylor said the City was not going to solve the problem. She believed it was a statewide issue rather than a local issue, and suggested that it be referred to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations so lobbying could begin at the State Legislature. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the complexities of some of the goals but emphasized that some, like the city hall question, were already in process. He did not want to wait for fall for an action plan on that goal. He hoped the manager took to heart the comments of the council. He believed the council would be prepared for the required work. He suggested that City Manager Taylor consider whether some of the action plans could be developed in phases, with an emphasis on the short term. He expressed concern that the projection of the time needed to complete the plans was due to staff's attempting to flesh out the plans too much. Mr. Kelly said that there were a lot of expectations in the community about the council's goals and that people were excited that the council was united on eight priorities. He said that residents will want to hear about progress. Mr. Pryor recalled the business adage that one could have something done fast, cheap, or right, pick any two; in this case, the council wanted to do the action plans right. He realized that both human and financial resources were a key issue. Mr. Pryor agreed there was some "low-hanging fruit" involved and encouraged staff to pursue those plans. In other cases, the plans would be more complex, and in order to get the plans fast the council would have to be willing to divert resources to support their development. He said the council may have to be more involved, and he was willing to spend the needed time. However, he acknowledged the staff commitment needed and the fact staff needed to maintain day-to-day operations. Mr. Pryor relied on City Manager Taylor and the executive managers to be able to say if a task was not possible and identify what could be accomplished. Mayor Piercy believed the council needed be able to demonstrate it was making progress on its goals. She suggested there were interrelationships among the goals that meant staff could work on them simultane- ously. She cited the construction of a new city hall as a means of forwarding the neighborhood initiative. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 9 Process Session Mr. Pap6 suggested that the council could put off items like the River Avenue improvements to the following year to give staff more time to work on the council's goals. City Manager Taylor summarized the discussion, saying the council wanted the plans faster, wanted them segmented into phases, and wanted to schedule additional work sessions to get the plans done. He would return with a proposal that addressed the council's comments. Mayor Piercy recognized Mr. Poling, who raised a process issue related to the use of the three-minute timer. He recalled that the council agreed not to use the timer's buzzer to signify when their time to speak was up for a trial period. He said that most councilors were paying attention to the time, but others were not. He suggested it was time to bring back the buzzer. Councilors briefly discussed the issue without resolution. Mr. Poling wanted to discuss the issue again prior to the September process session. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 10 Process Session ATTACHMENT B JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING April 19, 2005 7:00 p.m. (Harris Hall) City Councilor John Woodrow called the meeting of the City Council of Springfield to order. Present: Anne Ballew, Christine Lundberg, Joe Pishioneri, and Dave Ralston. Sid Leiken and Tammy Fitch were excused. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Present: Bonnie Bettman, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Gary Pape, David Kelly, Jennifer Solomon and Betty Taylor Commissioner Anna Morrison called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to order. Present: Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson, Faye Stewart and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer. 1. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1221/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility for Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15) (NBA & PM 4/5/05). Kent Howe, Land Management, explained the purpose for the meeting is to hear and take testimony on the proposed amendment to the Metro Plan. He added the purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the formation of a Public Safety County Service District is consistent with Metro Plan policies. He said it was unique in Lane County that they have to go through the steps in the process of forming a public safety district. He noted there are no policies in the Rural Comprehensive Plan that address special district formation. He added there are no policies in the Comprehensive Plan of any of the ten small cities in Lane County. He noted it is only the Eugene Springfield Metro Plan that gives rise to addressing special district formation. Howe indicated the Metro Plan policies were created at a time when they didn't contemplate the need for special service districts that provide public safety services nor did the Metro Plan contemplate the financial constraints that would be placed on local government. He explained it is only the Metro Plan policies that specifically limit the formation of special service districts regardless of the nature of the services provided. He added the contemplated public safety services are not growth inducing services. He noted the services are consistent with and complimentary to preventive and reactive public safety services. He noted that list is included and not limited to policy language intended to provide the context for determining the services that would be consistent with and be complementary to the contemplated services. Page 1 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m Howe stated the proposed amendment does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield relative to other growth management policies or their ability to annex land or control the proliferation of other growth inducing special districts. He noted that most of the public safety services are mandated by statute and the cities do not provide the contemplated public safety services. He said the County is already providing these services in the Eugene Springfield metro area. He indicated the applicable land use criteria for decision on the proposed amendment is that it is consistent with the statewide goals and it will not create an internal inconsistency within the Metro Plan. Howe said the Planning Commissions conducted their public hearings on February 1, had separate deliberations and all Planning Commissions recommended approval, adding that it was consistent with the criteria for the Metro Plan amendment. He noted they had three areas of concern: the "not withstanding exception" language, a single countywide district and with the language of the list of services that would be included. He added it was specifically the language "including but not limited to." He noted the packet materials contain four alternatives that increase in their restrictiveness. Commissioner Anna Morrison opened up the Public Hearing for Lane County. Mayor Kitty Piercy opened up the Public Hearing for the Eugene City Council. Councilor John Woodward opened up the Public Hearing for the Springfield City Council. Bettman commented that the two criteria they are making their decision on for the Metro Plan amendment is that it is consistent with the state goals and that it is internally consistent with the Metro Plan. She said they should be hearing testimony that has to do with state land use goals, the policies in the Metro Plan, the amendment in front of them and all of the land use issues. She noted it is a discrete piece they are considering. Sorenson asked if it was consistent with state goals to create a public safety district within urban growth areas within the State of Oregon. Howe responded that the statewide planning policies are silent on that issue. Green suggested discussing what services are being noted in the special district. He was willing to narrow the focus down to a land use issue. Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, recalled that in 1982 when they were drafting the language in the Metro Plan, one of the major concerns when the Metro Plan was being worked on, and acknowledged was the unincorporated population of River Road and Santa Clara. He said there was a concern in the community at that time the citizens in that area could form special districts and obtain urban levels of service outside the cities. He said the net effect would encourage growth on the edge of the Metro Plan and violate the compact urban growth policies. He said that is why there is restrictive language in Policy 15 about district formation. He added in 1982 local governments had the option of Page 2 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m asking citizens to approve a tax base by putting it on the ballot, there was no need for a plan amendment. He noted in 1982 tax bases grew by six percent. He commented it was a different financial environment than now. With regard to Measure 5, Van Vactor said it imposed the $15 cap on property taxes, $10 to general government and $5 to schools. He said with Measure 5 they could still have increased the tax base. He noted in 1996 Measure 47 changed things and in 1997 the legislature put out to the citizens a measure addressing the issue in Ballot Measure 47, called Ballot Measure 50. He said that passed and that is now the main architecture of the property tax system today. He noted that act had the effect of reducing all assessed valuation on a statewide average by 17%. He said it capped the property tax growth at 3%, plus new construction and instituted no legal way for Lane County to increase its permanent tax rate. He stated they are stuck forever at $1.27 per thousand. He noted that Lane County is 35 of 36 counties for low tax rates. He indicated costs for Lane County are around six percent and it is hard to control costs at six percent with revenue around three percent. He explained that every year they have to reduce services in order to keep their budget balanced. He added they had done that the past three years by containing costs and reducing services. He said they face the future of continuing to erode the services. Van Vactor distributed a revised charter for Fiscal Year 04/05 (copy in file) of the taxes and the rates and where Lane County ranks among counties. He said that Lane County is proposing an ORS. 451 County Service District. He explained that the Board of County Commissioners would remain in charge and there would be no new governing body or layer of government to coordinate the service delivery systems. Van Vactor indicated they wanted to go with a district instead of a local option levy because with a district, if approved by the voters, the rate is permanent. He believed that public safety is a core service of government and has an expensive infrastructure and shouldn't be subject to the risk every four years of the citizens not approving the renewal and the loss of the core service. He added that local option levies are more subject to compression and it would be a less stable option. Van Vactor described developing the Public Safety District with three major hurdles: getting the Metro Plan Amendment, the Boundary Commission process that involves getting the resolutions of support from all 12 cities, and the vote of the citizens in November 2006. He said if the Metro Plan were approved, they would be coming back with resolutions of support from each city. He said they could determine what the rate would be and how each city would be affected by compression and how they could make the proposal work for Lane County, Eugene and Springfield. He indicated the goal with all 12 cities is a win-win for all of the jurisdictions. He said they drafted this in a narrow fashion and it didn't touch on any of the other policies. Bettman noted the County sponsored a bill, HB3301 in the State Legislature that would enable special districts by removing the prohibition on overlapping districts, meaning that it could take in the City of Eugene. She added there was a provision in that bill that was Page 3 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m onerous because it eliminated the cities from their jurisdictional authority to approve or disapprove. She noted there is a promise that that provision would be taken out. She thought the Metro Plan Amendment that says "Notwithstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related policies in the plan" meant that nothing in the Metro Plan would apply to this amendment or the district. She said it removes Policy 15b) that says the three metropolitan area general-purpose governments concur with the proposal to form the service district as a zone of benefit. She said it was a requirement for compliance for Policy 15. She said the amendment would say that if Springfield and Eugene adopted the Metro Plan Amendment, they are taking themselves out of the process and agreeing to give up jurisdictional authority. Van Vactor stated the state law would remain in effect where the cities would have to give their consent before the County could go to the Boundary Commission. Bettman said Lane County's provision would have overridden this provision with regard to the safety district. Van Vactor explained that their provision in the Metro Plan would have overridden the provision with regard to a public safety district, not with other types of districts. Bettman thought they would be agreeing to give up their own authority. She requested that the City's legal team give them a comprehensive explanation regarding what the state statute says and how adopting this amendment would impact their ability to have authority in this decision. Sorenson asked if there could be an option for the County and two cities to make the creation of this district contingent upon all of the cities approving it. He wanted to make it clear that the district doesn't come into effect until all of the general-purpose governments prove it by a certain date. Van Vactor indicated it was possible to redraft the language in the proposed Metro Plan Amendment to provide that. He added they couldn't go to the Boundary Commission until they know the application is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan. He said they wanted to have the more flexible language in case all of the cities didn't approve. Bettman asked what in Policy 15 and the subsections was restrictive. Van Vactor thought the language in the amendment was restrictive. Bettman thought the language in Policy 15 was permissive. Van Vactor responded that it was the overall context of Policy 15 that lists: "Will be considered only when and states sections a to e. He thought that was restrictive, as they had to meet all of the conditions. Page 4 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m Jim Gangle, Assessor, explained if the district chooses a particular rate, there would be a property tax compression that would occur if they come up against the Measure 5 limitation. He distributed a document about the amount of compression that would occur in the cities across the county. (Copy in file). He noted that compression would occur on the local option levies first. He noted the City of Eugene has a youth and library local option levy and the City of Springfield has the police and fire local option levies and those districts start compressing first and the compression moves into the permanent authority. Bettman asked if Lane County would continue to spend what they are spending now. She also asked if the level they would continue to fund public safety services from the County's general fund would include $20 million. She asked if this would be $20 million of new services. Gangle indicated it would be $20 million of services to be added back. Woodrow recalled that three years ago the citizens of Springfield voted for the local option levy for both the police and fire department. He said based on the County's chart, they would have to take police officers off the street and close the fire station the voters told them they wanted open. He asked how they could justify that to the voters. Gangle said they want balance to occur and they are asking to maintain balance across the whole public safety system. He said they want to work in concert with the cities. He said they are not trying to work alone. Ballew asked if the market value increases would have any effect. Gangle responded if the real market value were increasing faster than the three percent limitation on the assessed value, they would have room under the Measure 5 cap. He added if the real market value flattened or continues to decline, the Measure 50 value starts bumping up against that. He noted that 65% of the county's properties still had gaps. Bettman asked if there was a ceiling for the County in the deficit the County is trying to accomplish with the service district. Gangle said they have tried to identify those services that are most valuable to the citizens of the county in the city and outside. His understanding was the cities and the County would work together to determine what those services are that would be best dealt with the Public Safety District and those amounts would be built into the levy. Russ Burger, Sheriff, explained the question is whether or not the Metro Plan could be amended to allow for the service district. He said they have ideas about the need but they need a conversation with the cities before they come up with the plan that is best for Lane County. He said from the Sheriff's Office perspective, they have 119 empty jail beds. He said they are empty because they don't have the funds to staff those beds. He noted Page 5 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m they release under 4,000 offenders a year who have either not completed their sentence or have not gone to trial yet. He asked the question on February 28 about what is going on with property crime in Lane County for unincorporated Lane County. He noted between January 1 and February 28, they had 1,056 burglaries reported and 1,107 thefts. He said they had lost their burglary investigator from budget cuts last year. He added that the 1NET Enforcement Team was also a victim of budget cuts. He stated they have a large meth problem. He said they no longer have a County-City Metro Swat Team. He added they also do not have any resident deputies in Florence, Cottage Grove, Blue River or up the McKenzie. He said their department has 4,620 square miles to cover and currently on swing shift he has two deputies on patrol to cover the entire county. He noted the cities of Eugene and Springfield pay rent for jail beds because they have people they want to keep in custody. He thought the service district could pay for that. He said that Springfield is discussing building a municipal jail. He said they have the money to build it but they cannot operate it. He thought the service district could pay for that. He said it was adding capacity to the system., but even if they had the 119 empty jail beds full it would still be too small for their needs for a county this size. He wanted to get together to resolve this. Alex Gardner, Deputy District Attorney, reported that in the past 25 years, their case volume had doubled. He said they prosecute all of the felonies in the jurisdiction because their office has exclusive jurisdiction over felony crimes in Lane County. He said they also have jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases that take place outside of the municipal areas. He said his office will receive 8,000 cases this year. He said at the time the caseload has doubled, they have had 30% reduction in prosecution staff in the criminal division. He added they have gone from 11 investigators in the criminal division to one. He said the Deputy District Attorneys have to do more of their own legwork. He commented that the system was being rendered less efficient even as the demand grows. He said between 60% and 70% of the people they are prosecuting on felony crimes are doing the crimes in Eugene and Springfield. He commented it is the people inside the municipalities who will end up paying most of the penalty. He said their office is currently failing to file close to 100 cases per month, as they don't have the District Attorneys to do it anymore. He said they were taking most of the felony drug crimes and turning them into infractions. He said it means the community index crime rate is soaring. He said it was a problem that couldn't wait indefinitely. Lisa Smith, Department of Youth Services, stated she represents the Juvenile Department for Lane County. She added the services they provide are not duplicated by any other agency within Lane County, the Cities of Eugene or Springfield. She said they are the authorized juvenile justice provider. She said they receive approximately 3,800 referrals per year. She added of those, 42% come from the City of Eugene, 27% come from the City of Springfield and the others come from the remainder of the County. She noted at no time do the cities receive a monthly accounting showing how much residential services were used. She said that had been an expense that has been held by the County. She said the Juvenile Department's mission is to hold youth accountable, locking up the juvenile offenders who pose the greatest risk to the community and they want to provide treatment so juveniles leave the system with more skills than when they entered. She Page 6 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m indicated they provide a full range of rehabilitative and reformative services. She said the current system has such serious reductions that their mission is at peril. She noted since 2001, state-closed custody beds through the Oregon Youth Authority have been reduced from 75 to 31 due to the state's own fiscal crisis. She said they have 31 of their most dangerous offenders that could go into the Oregon Youth Authority, but after that those youth remain in the community. She added they also have 32 beds of detention that is one third of their capacity. She indicated with reduction of other services, in dealing with youth and certain criteria that they have to meet, when they don't, there are no other options to deal with them. She commented that due to some of the reductions, they have become less effective with their case planning. She noted they have lost 11 staff members including a volunteer coordinator. Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, said when they are discussing public safety, they are talking about it broadly. He reported that on December 31, 1996, the state gave Parole and Probation Department to the County. He said he could only send it back to the state if they cut funding. He added they are mandated to do Mental Health and Alcohol and Drug treatment. He said the Commissioners are the Mental Health authority. He noted Health and Human Services is the prime funder of Mental Health and Alcohol and Drug Services in Lane County. He indicated they contract out about $60 million per year. He said they have lost about $6 million in the last two bienniums. He noted most of the clients they serve are in the metro area. He said the systems are collapsing because of state and federal cuts. He stated the systems are interconnected and they need each other and if they don't work together they would be in trouble. Doug Harcleroad, District Attorney, emphasized what the cities were hearing was a group of people who want to build a balanced public safety system with benefits for all citizens in Lane County. He said they want a mix of services and prevention that works and is balanced. He noted there are nine police agencies in Lane County with 400 sworn officers. He said they bring all of their felonies to the District Attorney's office. He said they have to decide on the amount of the levy together. He wanted the jurisdictions to make a decision on the land use issue and have the discussion about the mix of services and how they are going to make it happen. Fred Simmons_, Springfield, asked if they should use compression and then violate the trust of local voters. He thought they needed to carefully review this before they amend the Metro Plan. He said there are potential financial flaws that would reflect against the cities of Springfield and Eugene, but Willamalane Parks and Recreation will run into compression. He thought on its face it has not been thought out well enough. He said before they go to the Boundary Commission and the people, that they have a clear plan. David Hinkley, Eugene, commented that the proposed Public Safety District is a disastrous proposal for a non-existing problem. He said in the long run, this would undermine public support for city and county governments. He asked if the special district provided all of the services, why would general government be needed. He commented that public safety is the single largest impediment to local tax reduction measures. He indicated the public doesn't see all the services that government provides. Page 7 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m He said the money for public safety is there. He said the Board of Commissioners (if they wanted to) could fully fund public safety, but they don't want to. He commented the Board of Commissioners has chosen to fund a lot of things inadequately. He thought the solution for the County's public safety funding problem is budgeting, not increased taxes. He said the Board needs (with input from the public) to prioritize County services and programs at what is a barely adequate level of funding for each and then fund each program until the money runs out. He commented that one of the reasons that public safety levies keep failing is because it is extortion. He said until the County zeros out everything else, they haven't demonstrated to the public that they are serious. Charles Biggs, Eugene, was opposed to the Public Safety Service District being proposed. He didn't think it was only a Lane County concern. He thought other counties were in the same situation. He didn't think this was the correct direction for the County to take. He thought the County should address where the problem lies with the state. He thought all the counties in the state should get together to address the problem with the state. He said any additional rate increases should be done by a vote of the people, not a Board. He said the compression aspect of the district would hit the children, the schools and libraries that depend on option levies. He didn't think that was what the County wanted to do. Laurie Segel, Eugene, indicated the amendment is too broad. She stated in Chapter 3 of the Metro Plan g) services to development are identified in findings and what policies are listed. She said the services to development such as water, schools, have findings and policies but there are none for public safety services to serve development. She said the "not withstanding" and "all other related policies and texts" had inconsistencies. She said there needed to be findings and policies in Chapter 3 g) Public Facilities and Services, that speak to public safety services for development and that is currently not the case. Rob Handy, Eugene, said the policy they make, the tax breaks they give and the caps at the state level with Measures 5, 47 and 50, are channeling dollars and making decisions about funding priorities. He said it is limiting their ability to use discretionary funds for other things. He asked if urban renewal districts were sharing in compression. He was also concerned with the "notwithstanding" language. He asked that before any amendments to the Metro Plan were approved, to get the tax rate numbers and buy in from the other cities and make it contingent upon their moving forward. He was concerned that without the buy-in from other cities, Eugene would end up subsidizing some services and diminishing their ability to use the discretionary fund. Mona Linstromberg, Veneta, asked if the Metro Plan was the best route if the language of the amendment has any unintended consequences as it is now written. She said it was important to get the other cities on Board. Jim Hale_, Eugene, urged the elected officials to give the District Attorney and Sheriff the broadest possible language to solve a problem that applies to everyone in Lane County. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene. Page 8 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m Councilor Woodrow closed the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield. Commissioner Morrison closed the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on May 3, 2005 for Ordinance No. PA 1221. Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0. (Dwyer out of room). There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Melissa Zimmer Recording Secretary Page 9 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 27, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Bruce Miller, a citizen who testified frequently before the City Council, had passed away on April 26. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to bring back the motion ta- bled at the meeting held on April 18 which sought to take the position of oppose, priority 3 on House Bill 2608. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting in support of it. A. WORK SESSION: Emergency Management Plan City Manager Taylor asked Emergency Program Manager Charles Solin to speak about the Emergency Management Plan. Mr. Solin stated that after September 11, 2001, there had been a movement on the federal level to organize how communities respond to disasters, both natural and those caused by people. He said local municipali- ties were required to be "in sync" with the federal government in order to receive Homeland Security funding. He provided the councilors with CD copies of the Emergency Management Plan. Mr. Solin underscored that the City had specific emergency plans for ice events, south hills fires, civil disruptions, as well as the larger, all-hazards emergency plan. He said the different emergency plans were managed by the Disaster Operations Task Team. Mr. Solin stated that one key element in the plan was the clear definition of the roles of the Mayor and City Council in an emergency. He explained that this was because the council could be called upon to make some difficult decisions. He cited one example from the Midwest where the council was forced to decide not to protect an area of a town that had been repeatedly flooded. He also pointed out that the City looked to the councilors to be a communication link with their respective wards. Continuing, Mr. Solin explained that the council would have a resolution before it in May that called for the adoption of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). He said this incident command system (ICS) had resulted from the fires that had happened in Southern California in the 1970s. Multiple agencies responded to the fires and there had not been a system in place to coordinate the response. He noted that the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (Fire/EMS) used ICS as a rule. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 2005 Page 1 Work Session stated that until NIMS was adopted, even the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not have a clear way of inter-connecting with another j urisdiction's organizational model. He stressed that this did not change how the City addressed emergencies locally. Ms. Taylor asked if there was any assurance that all of the chain of command would not simultaneously be on vacation. Mr. Solin responded that typically such people appointed a person to act in capacity. In response to another question from Ms. Taylor, City Manager Taylor assured her that all of the people who could be given this level of responsibility were well-acquainted with the emergency plan. Ms. Taylor asked if all possible emergencies and how they would be responded to had been considered. Mr. Solin replied that staff had conducted a number of exercises, most recently a simulated terrorist event at the Moshofsky Center. He added that City emergency staff had also done an unannounced emergency drill several years earlier and every key executive manager had arrived at the Sheldon Emergency Center within 30 minutes. In response to another question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Solin stated that the system in place was good for any significant event. Ms. Taylor asked if staff had considered what would happen if the dams upstream broke and two hospitals were located by the river. Mr. Kelly commented that the relationship between the City Councilors and the City Manager was unclear in the emergency management plan. He felt some checks on the City Manager's power should be clearly delineated. Mr. Kelly said he reviewed his notes from 1999 and had been dismayed that two clarifications he requested were not in the plan. He stated that the City Manager at the time had agreed to incorporate them in the plan. He did not think either clarification changed any philosophy but he wanted them in the document nonetheless. He explained that the council had asked that the City Council and Mayor be included in the list of entities to be immediately notified in the case of an emergency and he did not see this wording in the document language. Mr. Solin assured Mr. Kelly that such notification was in the plan, though not in the specific section Mr. Kelly was referring to. He clarified that when the Public Information Officer (PIO) or City Manager was notified, one of their first responsibilities was notification of the Mayor and City Council. He indicated that the wording could be included in the section Mr. Kelly called out. Continuing, Mr. Kelly stated that the council had also specifically requested that wording be included to allow the City Council to repeal a City Manager's declaration of a state of emergency. He acknowledged that such wording was in an annex. Mr. Pap6 recalled that many discussions about emergency responses had been held prior to the year 2000. He agreed that the specific language cited by Mr. Kelly should be included in the main body of the document. He felt that in an emergency, people might not take the time to refer to annexes and appendi- ces. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Solin said he did not think the ICS would require funding MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 2005 Page 2 Work Session resources. He stated that training was being conducted every year and if a person was in a first-responder, role his or her responsibilities in the case of an emergency were incorporated into the training. He clarified that training was required for police, fire, and the majority of Public Works employees. Mr. Poling ascertained from Mr. Solin that the activation of the emergency system was the same for all situations but the reaction to an incident was specific to what type of incident it was. He asked if control over local operations would change if an agency such as FEMA came in. Mr. Solin responded that the control over local people would continue to be the responsibility of the City though it could fall under the umbrella of a federal agency. He said in a case such as the wind event a few years earlier, the federal government brought in its resources in the form of a disaster center to handle the claims after the event. Mr. Solin noted that the City of Eugene housed regional storage caches for one of the federal medical response teams and the federal govermnent was set up so that it could bring in an emergency auxiliary medical center or a morgue. Mr. Poling asked if the other local jurisdictions in the vicinity were going through the same process and how their plans folded in with Eugene emergency plans. Mr. Solin replied that the key was how Eugene interfaced with the County, which was undergoing the same process. He pointed out that he was currently working with the City of Springfield to help rewrite its emergency plan. Ms. Bettman asked if Eugene received a franchise fee when Springfield copied Eugene's plan. Mr. Solin responded that the City of Springfield was covering all of the costs. He said he brought a hazard mitigation plan before the council in 2004 that had been done as a Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Plan. Ms. Bettman remarked that she thought all of the jurisdictions contributed to the cost of creating the plan. Mr. Solin replied that the City of Eugene received the grant and the City of Springfield donated staff time for the hazard mitigation plan. In this case, he explained, the City of Eugene had entered into an inter- governmental agreement (IGA) and the City of Springfield was paying for the cost of writing the Emergency Plan. Ms. Bettman said her primary questions had to do with the extent of the oversight the legislative branch had over the administrative branch of municipal govermnent in a crisis. She thought the City Manager was able to declare an emergency and then could assume unprecedented authority once the declaration of emergency was made. She did not think the "extreme shift of authority" was warranted. She sought to include a specific provision that specified that the City Manager's authority was still overseen by an elected body. She speculated that a city manager 20 years from now might take advantage of such a position to award all debris removal contracts to one company, as an example. Mr. Solin underscored that the City Manager had to indicate that a situation or incident constituted a Level 3 emergency and that he had contacted the majority of the city councilors. He reiterated that it was not a legally defined state of emergency until the administrative order was enacted by this process. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for bringing the emergency plan forward. She noted that the hospital she worked for had a similar emergency management plan and indicated she was very comfortable with the plan as it was set forward. Mr. Kelly cited Eugene Code 2.1055, enacted in 1999, which declared that the City Manager shall provide the City Council with notice of each action that he or she would take and the City Council could, by MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 2005 Page 3 Work Session majority vote, override the City Manager's action. He thought this was an explicit check and balance. Nonetheless, he felt this language should not be relegated to an annex. Mr. Solin said it would not be problematic to make small changes to the document. Ms. Taylor seconded Mr. Kelly's request. She thought the language should be clear and specific because in 20 years this council would be gone and a City Manager could be in place who was "power hungry." City Manager Taylor remarked that it was unlikely that one would become "power hungry" in the midst of a disaster of some scale. Ms. Taylor suggested that Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) staff be required to undergo emergency training. She cited, as an example, the possibility that someone could poison the water at the Amazon Aquatic Center or that a stampede of exiting audience members could occur at the Hult Center for the Performing Arts. Mr. Pap6 ascertained from new councilors Pryor and Ortiz and Mayor Piercy that they did not know what their powers were in a state of emergency. He recommended this be incorporated into orientation and training for new councilors. He also requested inclusion of the Eugene Code that Mr. Kelly cited in council packets for the next meeting. Mr. Solin noted that it was included in the CD-ROM under Annex L. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Solin stated that the flow chart in the emergency plan was taken directly out of the National Response Plan. City Manager Taylor added that since 1944, the City Manager had been the executive officer in this situation according to City Charter. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the wording be changed on page 31, 6.6, so that at the end of the second sentence the word 'customers' be changed to 'residents' or 'people.' Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to extend the time for the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman said while she disagreed with the notion that someone might become "power hungry" she did believe in maintaining a series of checks and balances. She believed that some decisions were discretion- ary and a balance of power ensured that the best decisions would be made. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Solin stated that the emergency plan, in the legal annex, discussed the ordinances to declare a state of emergency. He said in the resolution to adopt NIMS there was no specific tie to the ordinances, but there was no need for there to be one as it sought to tie the City's system with the NIMS, the overarching system. He underscored that it did not supercede the local ordinance. Ms. Bettman opined that the ordinance should be cited in a provision in the resolution so that it could be easily tied into the ordinance. Mr. Pryor appreciated all of the work that had gone into the plan. He commented that he had only been involved in one emergency, the Thurston High School shooting. He stated that the emergency plan MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 2005 Page 4 Work Session notebook sat on a shelf during the emergency. He emphasized that there were only a few basic elements that needed attention, the set up of an emergency management organization, an emergency management center, and command control communication. Once these were in place, he said, everyone knew what to do. He stressed that the Springfield City Council was never convened during that emergency. He said that in an emergency, one had to have an extraordinary level of trust in the people who were providing that function because when an emergency was underway there was not time for discussion or deliberation. This was why exercises such as table-top models and simulations were utilized. He reiterated his appreciation for the "pre-effort." Mr. Kelly said he would feel more comfortable if there was a "finding" indicating that NIMS was true to the City's code. Mr. Solin agreed to include this. B. WORK SESSION: Sustainable Design and Construction for City Buildings City Manager Taylor noted that the City had received attention for its "green building" standards. He said Facilities Division Manager Glen Svendsen and Principal Facility Project Manager Michael Penwell would present the topic. Mr. Svendsen explained that the session sought to follow up on the November 8 discussion on existing buildings and the presentation sought to provide an overview of how sustainability guidelines were being used in the development of new buildings and the remodeling of older ones. He hoped to set the stage for further discussion of what the City's "green building" policy should be. He clarified that the draft policy in the council packets had been developed in 2002 and the whole field of sustainable building design, construction, and maintenance had changed significantly since then. Mr. Svendsen introduced Facility Project Manager Meredith Fox, who put together most of thc informa- tion for thc PowerPoint presentation and who had included leading edge sustainable products in a number of her projects over the last few years. Mr. Penwell proceeded with the presentation, copies of which were distributed to all those present. He explained that the Design and Construction Division of the Facilities Division managed all of the design and construction projects for General Fund buildings and also managed and consulted on most non- General Fund building projects as well. Mr. Penwell outlined the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, certifica- tion, and point system. He stressed that it was important to weigh the cost-versus-benefit of different certification levels. He hoped to attain some input in this regard from the councilors. Mr. Penwell explained that the scoring for new construction was divided into six categories: · Sustainable sites - was it a rehabilitated brown field and/or how accessible by mass transit was it? · Water efficiency - did it utilize such facilities as waterless urinals and low-flow faucets? · Energy and atmosphere; · Materials and resources - were materials with recycled content or materials that did not have a deleterious effect on health being used? · Indoor environmental quality - how well-ventilated and well-lit was it? MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 2005 Page 5 Work Session · Innovation and design process. Each of these categories had an allocation of a certain amount of points which, when compiled, would provide a LEED rating that ranged from the lowest rating of 'certified' to the highest rating of 'platinum.' Mr. Penwell listed some of the "green building" elements that were incorporated into the Library, the two new Fire Stations, and the Roosevelt Police Facility, such as daylighting, green materials, and construction waste management. He highlighted ways demolition debris had been recycled, such as the reuse of wood beams and the incorporation of ground concrete into the fill on the Chiquita site. He said over 90 percent of the debris had been diverted from the landfill. Mayor Piercy conveyed her appreciation for the presentation. Mr. Pap6 echoed her appreciation. He related that he attended the Green Building Conference in Portland. He said he marveled at the technology and expressed his support for continued sustainable construction in Eugene. He called it an opportunity for the City of Eugene to lead by example. He encouraged the City to set its sights higher and attain 'silver' or 'gold' LEED certification. Regarding specific suggestions for a sustainable building policy, Mr. Pap6 said he could agree to a minimum threshold at 5,000 square feet or more and that he thought the policy should be city-wide and not just limited to General Fund buildings. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pap& He supported some sort of point system for construction in the private sector. He thought the City should lead the way with sustainability practices and should publicize it well, such as providing statistics on savings the Library building construction provided. Mr. Kelly asked for a cost/benefit analysis of certification. He suggested that the draft plan be published for public comment when it was ready. Ms. Taylor supported pursuing 'gold' or 'platinum' LEED certification. She asked how the Library and Fire Station 1 would rate. Mr. Penwell responded that the Library would rate at the 'certified' level but the apparatus bay in Fire Station 1 made certification for that facility difficult. He thought it had potential to be certified at the 'silver' level. Ms. Bettman expressed admiration for the City of Portland, which she said had turned development projects into tourist attractions by attracting conventions and utilizing the City as subject matter. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Penwell stated that there was much analysis now that LEED had been in place for some time. He said the difficulty lay in what to compare it with. He stressed that there was a clear benefit when comparing a LEED certified building to a code minimum building, but commented that no one built "cheap buildings" anymore. Ms. Bettman indicated that she supported pursuing the higher certifications. She wished to enhance healthy and safe work environments, which would provide points toward LEED certification. She wanted to take the stance that the City would build sustainable buildings. She added that she would not apply a threshold for square footage. Mr. Pryor concurred with all that had been said about construction. He said, regarding demolition debris, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 2005 Page 6 Work Session every ton of material cost $45 and if half of the material was recycled it saved that money. He pointed out components of the meeting room that could be recycled and resold, which would actually make money for tax payers. He felt benefits could be reaped from both demolition and construction. Mr. Penwell reiterated that 95 percent of the demolition material from the old Chiquita site had been reused or recycled. He thought the City Hall building could easily be recycled should it be razed. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pap& He had some of the same questions that Mr. Kelly had regarding the certification versus equivalency and the cost benefits. He was particularly interested in the recycling of demolition material as it benefited both the environment and the City taxpayers' pocketbooks. Mayor Piercy said it was great to have an opportunity at a work session to show the public the work the City was doing. She shared her excitement at the responses of the people around the table and stated that she looked forward to taking the opportunity to move forward on this. She encouraged the council to take both the long view and the short view and move forward as possible with real "vigor and aim." Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 2005 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall May 9, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy announced that May was American Wetlands Month. She noted that the West Eugene Wetlands Program was one of the largest wetlands restoration projects in the United States. Mayor Piercy reported that the federal Community Development Block Grant had been fully funded by Congress. Mayor Piercy announced that 2005 was the 50th year of service for McKenzie-Willamette Hospital. Mr. Poling thanked City staff, in particular Planner Allen Lowe, for conducting a tour of the city's mixed- use sites for the City Council and Planning Commission the previous Friday. Ms. Taylor noted that the previous day, May 8, was the anniversary of VE Day. She recalled that day, when she had walked from campus to downtown in bare feet and hugged everyone she encountered. Ms. Taylor said residents were complaining to her about the condition of the roads and asking why the City was not using the money from the gas tax for them. She indicated the need was greater than the demand. She anticipated she would hear more about Hilyard Street, which was too deteriorated to repair. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council employ the City's Facilities Reserve Fund to fix the roads as she considered that more urgent than a new City building. Ms. Taylor said that residents of Whitbcck Boulevard continued to be unhappy that their privately maintained road was not restored to the condition it had been in prior to new development. She said the City should either restore the road since it had authorized the work or force the contractor who damaged the road to do so. Ms. Taylor said that Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) was in the process of hiring a new director. She said a new Eugene representative was supposed to be added to the board because of the city's growing population. However, the board wanted to appoint another at-large representative, which was supposed to occur when there was an even number of members. With the new Eugene representative, MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 1 Work Session there would be an even number without an at-large member. She did not think it wise to add an at-large member and asked the City Manager to direct legal counsel to provide the interim manager of LRAPA with legal advice. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated he would get back to her with a response. Mr. Kelly congratulated the owners of Opus 6, a new art gallery that had recently opened in the parking structure on 7th Avenue across from the Hult Center, noting that they had done a first-class job on the space. He encouraged councilors to visit the business, which he understood was made possible in part by a loan from the City's Business Development Fund. Mr. Kelly reported that the Human Rights Commission's Gender Identity Work Group held its second public information event on May 5. About 20 speakers offered testimony in a very supportive environ- ment. The group would have it final meeting on May 11, and would decide at that time whether to forward any code changes to the City Council. Mr. Kelly said the Region 2050 effort was about to make a "big splash" in the form of a full-color insert that would go into all area newspapers very soon. The insert would outline three broad alternative ways in which the region might grow in the next 50 years. A series of community meetings would be held in each jurisdiction. The Eugene meeting was scheduled to occur on September 22 at the Lane County Fair- grounds. Mr. Pap6 thanked Planning Division and Public Works Department staff for the tour of mixed-use sites. Mr. Pap6 called the council's attention to the March edition of American City and County, which mentioned Eugene in an article on green buildings. He congratulated staff on the recognition and hoped more would come as the City worked toward its green certification. Mr. Pap6 said he and Ms. Ortiz attended the a meeting of the Oregon Passenger Rail Advisory Committee meeting the previous month and it looked as though the second passenger train could be retained. Mr. Pap6 noted he was the City' s representative on the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Board, and alerted the council that a question had come up about the appropriateness of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce's commissioning work from LCOG with regard to a study it was performing of the residential land supply. He said he would try to get the board to consider what it should be doing with regard to contracting, although he believed the information that would be provided in the report was needed. Ms. Ortiz said that the River Road Community Organization was conducting a forum on annexation that evening at 7 p.m. at the River Road School. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson would attend the forum. Ms. Ortiz said that at the meeting of the Oregon Passenger Rail Advisory Committee, a representative of Union Pacific Railroad promised to provide her with a contact number for the railroad. Ms. Ortiz said she recently attended an event advocating for 100 percent access to the medical community for the uninsured. She said the working noninsured poor were the biggest focus. Ms. Ortiz said she spent a couple of hours at Station 2 with some firefighters and visited with some 9-1-1 operators. She said the facility was fabulous, and she termed it a pearl in the community. She was happy to see the use the facility received. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Ortiz about a letter that Mayor Piercy received from Commissioner Bobby Green, Mr. Poling said he requested that City Manager Taylor develop a procedure allowing staff to provide the council with notice of any City:related issues coming before the Board of County Commissioners so the council could provide direct input to the board via e-mail or send a councilor to appear at the meeting. City Manager Taylor said he would ensure the council received notice of such discussions in the future. Ms. Bettman determined from City Manager Taylor that generally, staff represented the council's positions before the Board of County Commissioners. City Manager Taylor said it was not hard to let the council know of such meetings. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the news about the second passenger train. Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor to find out if the public was reimbursed for the use of LCOG data when used by private entities. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up. Ms. Bettman thanked the Lane Transit District (LTD) and City staff for the tour of mixed-use sites, which seemed to raise more questions than answers. She indicated she would request a work session on the topic because there were initiatives coming from many different directions regarding the removal of obstacles to high-density development in neighborhoods. She believed the council needed to weigh in and at least hear about those initiatives. She said that staff was substituting the term "mixed-use" for "nodal" development, and those terms had different meanings. The council had not discussed the policy implications of that shift. Ms. Bettman said the Police Commission would hear from its subcommittees regarding its initial recommendations about police oversight on May 12. She noted the police union had 45 minutes on the agenda to discuss its position on police oversight. Mr. Pryor said he, Mayor Piercy, and Ms. Solomon attended a meeting of the Active Bethel Neighbors the previous week, and he thought the mayor had done a good job with her remarks to the group. Mr. Pryor said he, Ms. Ortiz, and new Springfield City Council Joe Pishioneri recently heard an interesting briefing from LTD staff regarding the Bus Rapid Transit program and the Emerald Express, or EMX. He expressed disappointment in having to miss the tour of mixed-use sites due to a last-minute conflict. Mr. Pryor noted his work with the Community Health Centers of Lane County, which was part of the Human Services Commission's program. Much of the center's funding comes through the commission from the federal government. Mr. Pryor commended the program, and noted that while it had one major clinic facility in Springfield it was also working through local schools to provide health care to youth and some seniors. Mr. Pryor said he was asked by the mayor to continue some of the work on parks and open space planning that had been begun by former Councilor Nancy Nathanson. The form that would take was unknown at this time. He wanted a collaborative and involved process, and promised the council frequent updates. He indicated his highest priority was getting the comprehensive plan adopted. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 3 Work Session City Manager Taylor said he had spent considerable time thinking about the council's goal of promoting the arts and outdoors, and the First Friday Art Walk that occurred on May 6 was a wonderful example of the community's spirit around that goal. He further noted the recent track meet at Hayward Field, which was another important element of the council's goal. City Manager Taylor expressed appreciation for the work done by Chief Tom Tallon and Deputy Chief Ruth Obadal with regard to completing the site visit needed as the final step toward accreditation of the department. Mayor Piercy said she toured new Fire Station #1 on Friday, and it was fabulous. Ms. Solomon arrived. B. WORK SESSION: Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission FY05-06 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program Peter Ruffler of the City's Wastewater Division and General Director Susie Smith of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) joined the council for the item. Mr. Ruffler provided an overview of the proposed budget, noting the proposed rate increase of six- percent, which was anticipated as part of a multi-year strategy adopted by the commission the previous year. It would generate about $727,000 in revenue, $430,000 of which would go to operations, $265,000 to revenue bond requirements, and $32,000 for funding capital improvements directly. Mr. Ruffler reviewed flow breakdowns for residential and commercial users, and said the rate increase would be paid proportionately. Mr. Ruffler noted the addition of an FTE (full-time equivalent) staff person for bio solids management. Mr. Ruffler called the council's attention to the proposed capital budget and noted the new projects and their funding sources. Mr. Ruffler indicated the council could choose to ratify the budget or return it to the MWMC with questions or requested modifications. Mr. Ruffler noted that the Board of CoUnty Commissioners was scheduled to consider ratification of the budget on May 11; the Springfield council would consider the budget on June 20. The MWMC would adopt the final budget on June 23. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor asked if the council's action had the effect of ratifying the rate increase. Mr. Ruffler said yes. Ms. Taylor asked if the council could stop the increase. Mr. Ruffler said yes, if the council decided not to ratify the budget. The rate increase was needed to implement the budget before the council, so it was not possible to separate the two actions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman referred to page 23 of the operating budget and suggested that, due to a decrease in residential water use, the MWMC revenues also dropped, leading to the need for the rate increase. She asked why, since the rates were intended to cover usage and flow, they did not go down when water use went down. Mr. Ruffler indicated there was no correlation between less water usage and rates or linear relationship in terms of wastewater treatment. Water is a carriage medium for wastewater, so while a resident may use less water they were still contributing the same strength or even higher strength of waste, causing treatment costs to remain relatively even. The portion of the plant's expenses affected by conservation was pumping costs. Ms. Smith said that people would see some savings on the local side of the bill, which was where the conveyance system was reflected. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Ruffler that the positions in Public Works were reimbursed through the MWMC. Ms. Bettman asked how much the commercial rates were increasing. Mr. Ruffler said they were going up six percent as well. Ms. Bettman said her experience on the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee led her to believe that there was considerable "wiggle room" in determining the capacity for new growth. She maintained that in general, Eugene was in the lower third of Oregon cities in terms of recovering the costs of growth through systems development charge (SDCs). Even if the SDC was consistent with the methodology, she suggested it could correctly be stated that the community was not recovering the costs of growth because staff could not develop a definitive allocation for SDCs. Ms. Smith said that the SDC methodology the MWMC forwarded to the two councils followed the new statutes effective in 2003. Those statutes laid out a procedure that required the commission to develop a project list. Every project on the list must be allocated across all the process components and each had an allocation to growth. A great deal of analysis of individual projects went in to determining what was needed for capacity for new growth. Ms. Smith said the MWMC secured the best consultants it could to evaluate the projects for the specific new capacity requirements for growth. There was no judgment call on the part of the commission to either lower the SDC or avoid full cost recovery. The analysis done was a technically objective analysis. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 about a proposed staffing shift, Mr. Ruffler said Eugene provided both regional and local services and the cost of regional services were paid by the MWMC. Each year staff looked back at the allocation of staff time and the projection for the next year, and adjusted the funding percentages accordingly. Mr. Pap6 asked if the increased work load in bio solids management could be addressed by the staffing increase proposed. Mr. Ruffler anticipated additional increases in staffing as subsequent phases were added to the bio cycle farm project. Ms. Smith said the added staff was also needed to empty and reline the lagoons on a more aggressive time line than originally foreseen. At the request of Mr. Pap6, Ms. Smith reviewed the changes to the reserves. Mr. Kelly asked if the SDC was covering the cost of growth. Ms. Smith said yes. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the status of the court case involving the MWMC Facilities Plan, Ms. Smith said that the case was going to oral argument on May 16. Mr. Jewett said the judge indicated it was his goal to have a decision by the end of June 2005. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said nothing in the budget or capital budget was unexpected to him. He asked if either contained any deviation from the plan the council reviewed in 2004. Ms. Smith said no. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible, given the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, that the SDC failed to provide full-cost recovery at some point in the 20- year plan. Ms. Smith said the Facilities Plan had scheduled updates every five years, and she anticipated that the projections would be adjusted accordingly. Ms. Bettman asked if anything in the IGA held the MWMC to the standard of full cost recovery. Ms Smith said the IGA laid out financing criteria. Those criteria have become the established principles in the financing plan, and they spoke to the need for full- cost recovery. Ms. Bettman asked what the SDC rate increase for residential development would be. Mr. Jewett indicated the regional rate went from about $500 to $945 for a single-family residence. Mayor Piercy called for a third round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman referred to the reimbursement charge in Table 6 of the SDC methodology, and said the total reserve capacity was $62 million. That was capacity in the existing system that could be used to serve new development. She asked if the SDCs were set at a level that allowed the MWMC to recover the cost of projected capacity as well as the reimbursement component. Ms. Smith said everyone who paid an SDC paid an improvement fee and reimbursement fee component that allowed those costs to be covered. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to ratify the fiscal year 2005-2006 MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Pap~ offered as a hypothetical situation that Eugene had a better stormwater system than Springfield, and asked if staff could quantify the increased load that Springfield put on the system through failure to address infiltration and inflow (I&I). Ms. Smith said that during the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, staff built a model of the entire system and determined the most cost-effective I&I rehabilitation work and improvements needed to the plant to make the overall system the most cost- effective. As a result of the plan, the two cities had targeted different basins and targeted budget amounts based on system condition. A Eugene-Springfield staff team met quarterly to track how well that effort was going. Mr. Ruffler added that the plant monitors flows coming in from the different parts of the system, and it was more likely that there was a higher percentage of I&I coming from the Eugene than from Springfield. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 6 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as an Intergovernmental Entity; and Providing an Effective Date; and A Resolution Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Man- agement Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Mr. Ruffler and City Attorney Glenn Klein joined the council for the item. Mr. Ruffler reviewed the changes made to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in response to the council's comments at earlier work sessions. He referred any bond-related questions to City Finance staff Sue Cutsogeorge. Mr. Ruffler reported the Springfield City Council adopted the amendments to the IGA on May 2. The Board of County Commissioners was scheduled to have a first reading of the ordinance on May 18, and a second reading and public hearing on June 1. Mr. Ruffler noted that a public hearing before the council was scheduled to occur later that night, with final action scheduled for May 23. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the authority of the MWMC to direct user rate revenues to the bond covenants rather than systems development charge revenues even if the differential was SDC- eligible, Mr. Klein confirmed the MWMC could choose to fund the entire difference needed to meet bond covenants from user rates. Nothing in the IGA required the MWMC to fund part of the difference from SDCs. Ms. Smith pointed out that there were financial planning criteria in the IGA related to equity across user classes and the other principles that made it unlikely that MWMC would take that approach. Mr. Kelly posited the possibility that the current council would not be in place to oversee the issue in the future and a future MWMC body could take another approach by changing the financial policies. Mr. Jewett suggested that overlooked the existing text in Section 3(f) that mandated the MWMC to take certain considerations into account in dealing with the financial plan. Ms. Bettman indicated that she was not satisfied by Mr. Jewett's answer and asked staff to prepare an amendment calling for full-cost recovery. Ms. Bettman indicated she would also request an amendment to Item 1 on page 4 of the IGA related to full-cost recovery; an amendment to change Item 4 to replace the phrase "promoting equity" with "ensuring equity"; and an amendment replacing "promoting" with "ensuring" in Item 5. Mr. Kelly suggested that Section 3(d) of the IGA could be amended to address the issue of full-cost recovery. Ms. Bettman asked why Lane County was a party to the IGA. Mr. Ruffler said that the County partici- pated as the funding mechanism through a county service district. The local bonds needed to match the federal grants have been paid off, so the county service district was no longer collecting revenue for that purpose. City Manager Taylor added that the Board of County Commissioners had considered changing the IGA to eliminate its participation, but given the need to get to the bond market, there was agreement to keep the structure intact and revisit the idea later. The board had also expressed some interest in working through some of the issues with Eugene and Springfield that must be addressed to add the City of Coburg to the IGA. Ms. Bettman disagreed with that approach, saying it prejudiced the Coburg study and almost MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 7 Work Session predicated the outcome. The cities were providing the service and needed staff, and the inclusion of Lane County complicated negotiations between the cities and provided the board with an opportunity to veto the actions of the two cities. She wanted to see an amendment to the IGA that removed the County from the agreement. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the element of the IGA that gave the MWMC ultimate authority over rates. Mr. Ruffler clarified that the IGA gave the commission the ultimate authority in determining rates necessary to repay the bonds. The governing bodies could request reconsideration. If the MWMC refused to reconsider the rates, the issue would be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for resolution. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Smith said that any additional changes adopted by Eugene would be referred to Springfield for adoption. Mr. Pap6 questioned whether Eugene could force a full- cost recovery policy on Springfield. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman noted that growth was expected throughout the community, with a slighter higher amount attributed to Springfield. There was no differential in the SDC for a development based on its location. In other words, more growth was happening in Springfield, and if that community decided to collect a lower local SDC, the loss would be made up in user fees from ratepayers, and Eugene ratepayers will be paying for growth in Springfield. For that reason, the IGA had to be modified to call for 100 percent cost recovery from SDCs. Mayor Piercy determined that Mr. Klein and Mr. Jewett believed it was legal for the council to hold a single public hearing on the two MWMC items. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Ruffler confirmed that the amendment of the IGA required the consent of the County. City Manager Taylor added there was sentiment on the part of the board to discuss that with the two cities. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Bettman for a third round of questions. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Smith that properties must annex to one of the two cities to receive service from the MWMC. Ms. Bettman asked if the home builders were suing over the project list, the rates, or the SDCs. Mr. Jewett said the homebuilders were suing over all those things. They were suing over adoption of the facilities plan, the 309 list, the SDC methodology, and the manner in which rates were calculated. The home builders were also challenging amendments to the comprehensive plan and facilities plan. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 8 Work Session City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall May 9, 20O5 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pap6. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed all present. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy observed that 16 people had signed up for the Public Forum, which would exceed the time allotted for the item, and called on the council for a motion. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to extend the time for the Public Forum by 15 minutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Scott Olmos, 3765 Meadow View, said he was the new president of the Eugene Firefighters Association. He supported the re-staffing of Engine 9 housed at Fire Station 9 both as a firefighter and as a resident of the Cal Young neighborhood. He cited the Standards of Response cover document, dated December 2004, which provided fact-based evidence, including an increase in emergency response time, that the re-staffing was necessary. He averred that the response times put citizens at risk and recommended immediate re- staffing of Engine 9. He acknowledged the challenges this would present but felt they were not insurmountable. He predicted the increase in costs due to overtime would be lessened in time by the planned hiring of 12 new firefighters in June and 12 more firefighters in one year. Sven Wahlroos, 3103 Riverbend Avenue, introduced himself as a Eugene firefighter and the Secretary/Treasurer of Eugene Firefighters Local 851. He echoed Mr. Olmos' support for the re-staffing of Fire Engine 9. He pointed out that the fire truck itself had been relocated to the Santa Clara station three years earlier. This left a documented emergency response gap in the vicinity surrounding Station 9. He averred that the citizens in Ward 5 "eagerly awaited" the.re-staffing of this "important resource." He noted that two sources had been identified for funding the fire crew at Station 9: 1) the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant; and 2) the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) lawsuit. He underscored that the SAFER grant was part of a group of federal grants which had to be shared by many thousands of fire stations across the country. He did not think the City of Eugene would qualify. He noted, too, that the Bush administration was unlikely to continue to support the SAFER program. He did not think the PERS funding could be counted on either. He hoped that the City Council would ensure that such a priority would be adequately financed with secure funding. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session Dan Herbert, 1913 Potter Street, noted that he was a member of the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC), though he was speaking for himself at this meeting. He recalled Councilor Bettman's comments that the forthcoming search for a new Planning Director might offer an opportunity to reexamine the relationship between planning and development, and that one division could be for planning and the other arm could be for permits, information, and development. He agreed with the general sense of the suggested division, but thought it should be taken further and the development division should be allowed some autonomy. He suggested that the agency could support public/private partnerships for development projects throughout the City. He averred that such partnerships had been used successfully in more than 50 cities worldwide to revitalize downtown areas. He cited the City of Portland as a prime example. He underscored that he was not seeking action so much as he was hoping to stimulate some thinking about this approach. He closed by stating that the Brookings Institution recently published a research brief entitled, Turning Around Downtown and suggesting that the council read it. He said now was the right time to begin rethinking reorganization of the planning in the city of Eugene as future population growth would inevitably increase pressure for development. He reminded the council that library bonds would be paid in 2008. Ruth Phelps, 5445 Donald Street, stated that she was a trustee for the Eugene Garden Club. She conveyed the club's approval for the paving of the alley behind the building but averred the cost was too high. She related that the Garden Club had been deemed comparable to a general office and said the club was challenging this designation. She explained that parking was limited, the club did not even have a telephone on-site, and the meetings were only bi-monthly. She highlighted the benefits to the community the club provided, such as the educational presentations to the public held at one meeting per month, and that the Audubon Society met at its building. She underscored that all of the groups utilizing the building were nonprofit. Lee Rademacher, 4174 Lancaster Drive, read a statement written by Ellen Hyman, member of the Santa Clara Citizens for Sensible Parks and Open Spaces (SCCSPOS). He related that she likened the debate between the City and citizens of Santa Clara regarding the potential land swap to the battle between David and Goliath. He conveyed her assertion that the citizens of Santa Clara were battling to keep Class 1 lands from being paved over. He said the people were coming together to preserve the land and to remind the City Council that this was an opportunity not to be squandered. Regarding the telephone survey of area residents on the land swap, Mr. Rademacher averred that questions were leading and not intended to achieve unbiased results. He quoted someone's comments on having been surveyed. Mr. Rademacher reiterated that most people were not opposed to parks, but they were opposed to having a land swap that would pave the way for 1,000 new homes to be built on farmland. He related that the Santa Clara Community Organization recently voted 70:4 in support of building more parks, but without the land swap. Maggie Yokum, 4174 Lancaster Drive, said that she had been surveyed regarding her feelings on the Santa Clara area land swap on March 16. She stated her opposition to the proposal. She maintained that the survey was not neutral and cited several specific examples. She felt she was receiving a sales pitch and not being asked her true feelings about the situation. She asked the City Council to view the information gleaned from the survey with some skepticism. She reiterated that the Santa Clara Neighborhood Organization voted overwhelmingly to oppose the land trade. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, alleged that the survey was part of"smart growth marketing." He asked what the City budgeted for such marketing in a year. He said he had witnessed bias similar to what had been described in the previous testimony. He cited an article in The Oregon Daily Emerald. He felt that the Parks and Open Space Division staff had a pattern of interpreting data "the way they want" and "taking liberties" with neighborhoods. He felt that neighborhood groups were often at odds with City staff. Mr. Vishanoff asserted that his neighborhood had been "stonewalled" by the alley project. He alleged that he had heard a Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) employee state that money for the upkeep for alleys was diverted to the Riverfront Research Park roads. Mr. Vishanoff wished to add to his Budget Committee testimony by listing more endorsees of the resolution in regard to the basketball arena, including student cooperatives, the ASUO president and others. Lisa Warnes, 5020 Nectar Way, submitted her testimony in writing. She announced that the East Fork Amazon Headwater Preservation Society (EFAHPS), formerly known as Nectar-Dillard Forest, formed an alliance with the SCCSPOS. They opposed the "McDougal" land swap for the following reasons: 1) Opposition to it was overwhelming; 2) It set a bad precedent to move the urban growth boundary (UGB) to accommodate developers; 3) The 197-acre site that the proposed 900+ homes and commercial complexes was located on prime Class 1 agricultural soil; 4) The schools were already over-crowded and under-funded; and 5) It would cause traffic problems to worsen. While she acknowledged that growth would occur, she averred paving over prime agricultural and forested land was bad planning, short-sighted, irresponsible, and motivated by profit. She asked the council to consider that as more growth was encouraged, it should be done in a sustainable manner. She underscored that the air quality of the Willamette Valley already fell below State and federal standards for air quality as the valley did not ventilate well. She questioned whether the City was prepared to accommodate new people and whether there would be jobs available for them. She wondered if staff was researching "smart growth." In closing, Ms. Warnes said she thought the survey seemed to be designed for a particular outcome, one not founded in the best interests of the citizens as a whole. Kate Perle, 4740 Wendover Street, shared a copy of the telephone survey the City sponsored to gain public input on the Santa Clara parks proposal. She related that the SCCSPOS was "astonished" at how the survey seemed to be designed to sway the respondents' answers by telling only part of the story or through "actual misinformation." Copies of the survey were provided to the council with suggested edits to indicate where the committee thOught the survey "had gone wrong." She read some of the questions aloud and commented on portions of those she thought were leading. Steve Pethick, 987 Almaden Street, said he participated in the Chambers Node Revisited (CNR) project. He expressed appreciation for the work of Senior Planner Allen Lowe and consultants to develop design standards that sought to protect what he called a "wonderful working example of a compact pedestrian- friendly neighborhood." He shared that his wife, Pamela, and he both enjoyed the neighborhood and hoped that it would remain a safe and attractive place to raise their children. He related that they volunteered to help contribute to the success of the CNR process and had joined the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) group. He conveyed his pride in the group's accomplishments over the past months which included the formation of an organization that enlisted the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session participation of more than 30 families in the neighborhood and a number of neighbors outside of the CNR area. He shared that one member, an architect, convened a "boot camp" that taught participants about setbacks, roof slopes, and building mass among others, and that members walked the neighborhood, recording detailed information on how lots had been developed. He felt that without this work, there would not have been the database on which to present the group's proposals. He thought CAFHN had provided a remarkable opportunity for people to learn about issues and to have a real say on what the ultimate proposals were. He asserted that without this process, the public meetings would not have been enough. He cited the April 14 design review meeting at which 50 slides were shown in two hours with little time for neighbors to ask questions. He hoped the council would encourage the project team to "have the appropriate regard" for the work done and the concerns the neighbors still had. Sharon Sherman, 1129 Taylor Court, said she was one of Eugene's original "infill pioneers," as she and her husband moved into a modest bungalow that had been moved from its original location to a vacant lot the City had landbanked on an alley. She showed an article from The Register-Guard that covered the story, dated from 1979, that talked about how the City and the Westside Neighborhood Association were working together to promote houses being placed on vacant lots in the neighborhood and sold to owner- occupants. She related that the emphasis on owner-occupied residents was to stabilize the highly transient rental neighborhood. She asserted the planners had lost touch with this idea and through zoning changes the neighborhood had burgeoned with cheap apartments without concern for the impact on adjacent home- owners or neighborhood stability. She called her block the "poster child" for destructive and destabilizing infill. She said the City invited area residents to participate in a process that would result in infill standards to protect the health of the neighborhood. She alleged that because the project ran out of time, a crucial standard to limit building height and mass had not been addressed and 35- to 40-foot buildings would continue to be allowed. She asked the council to encourage the CNR team to extend its collaboration with CAFHN and address this remaining issue. Paul Cont,, 1461 West 10th Avenue, said he was a member of the CAFHN steering committee. He thanked the staff and consultants who had worked on the project. He averred that two problems that arose in late March and April had jeopardized the project, which he deemed "once on its way to success." He said staff and consultant resources were underestimated and that building height and mass standards had not been completed. He alleged the "deficiencies" in the standards did not reflect the well-documented neighborhood character. This caused 18 of the 20 people present to sign a letter in opposition to the standards, which was then submitted to the project team. He asserted the team appeared to be no longer using the neighborhood's character as the basis for some of the standards. He said the group was told height standards for the neighborhood could not be stricter than R-1 and infill standards for the neighborhood had to be generic enough to fit mixed use nodes throughout the City. He called this a major reversal in how the project had been presented to the residents. He thought it made no sense to have standards that sought to protect the character of a neighborhood unless the standards were based on a "well-researched identification of the characteristics specific to that neighborhood." He asserted the project was moving ahead with a proposal that had strong public opposition to major elements and that did not fulfill the purpose of the project, which sought to develop infill standards. He declared the project to be sliding back to the "one-size-fits-all" approach to nodal development that the council specifically rejected. He said CAFHN proposed a solution to the PDD Director that would have the Planning Commission consider whether infill standards should be based on the character of the neighborhood to which they apply or whether such standards should be generic. Carol DeFazio, 1437 West 10th Avenue, also represented CAFHN. She shared the perspectives of the previous three speakers. She felt cut off from effective involvement in the height and mass standard. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session wished to make clear that CAFHN was not asking the CNR project team or the City to agree with everything the group had recommended. She related that CAFHN expected the process to produce a proposed standard that would protect the character and stability of the neighborhood. She called what had happened with the mass and height standard a "fundamental failure" to fully engage the public in meeting one of the project's most important goals. She reiterated that the standard would allow for the construction of 40-foot structures in a neighborhood where most dwellings were approximately 20- to 22- feet high. She underscored the neighborhood's repeatedly expressed objections to this "incompatible standard." She noted that staff indicated that no public support had been expressed for the consultant's proposal. She related that the project director encouraged the group to give testimony at the Planning Commission hearing on June 28. She opined that three-minute testimony was not a productive way to genuinely involve the public. She asked the council to encourage the City Manager to find a way to have the CNR project team re-engage representatives of area neighbors to spend a "few hours" to find a suitable alternative proposal prior to the hearing before the Planning Commission. Adam Waist, 307 East 14th Avenue, president-elect of the Association of Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) and member of the Board of the West University Neighbors (WUN), wished to speak about the City's plan for repaving alleys throughout the City of Eugene. He stated that as the first neighborhood slated for these improvements, his neighborhood had the "privilege" of working with City staff on this issue. He said while not all members of the WUN could agree on the merits of the project, all of them were grateful for the City's level of involvement. He wished to thank Civil Engineer Steve Gallup of the Public Works Department for his numerous presentations at meetings and his willingness to take into consideration the desires of the neighborhood. He also thanked Councilor Kelly and Program Specialist Steve Norris, who helped the WUN evolve into a forum for concerned neighbors. He conveyed the neighborhood's gratitude for Mayor Piercy's attendance at a recent meeting. He expressed hope that the work done by staff and the level of involvement the City had shown in the project with the neighborhood association would serve as a model not only for City involvement in neighborhood associations as a whole, but for City projects in the future. He underscored that this collaborative intent on the part of the City had not gone unnoticed. Debbie Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, spoke in regard to the draft plan for Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces (PROS). She said she and a neighbor both had property listed for acquisition in the plan though neither of them had participated in the process. She pointed out that the draft plan had cost the City $200,000 and was slated to plan out to 2025. She asserted that development of the plan had not been coordinated with other City departments and the plan had identified numerous sites outside of the UGB. She wished to bring the plan to the attention of the council because it had been discussed in budget hearings and the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee meetings. She alleged there were "serious flaws" in the plan as it omitted over 2,850 acres, including 2,500 of the West Eugene Parkway and 300 acres of golf courses, two of which were designated as Park and Open Space on the Metro Plan. She also wished to call attention to 1,300 acres that were not included because of being part of the Goal 5 inventory. She averred this comprised 25 percent of the current property within the City limits as parks and open spaces. She did not believe the plan should not be used for any council decision unless it included every piece of land. She alleged there was a lack of coordination between departments. She averred the Parks and Open Space Division was making plans for acquisition outside the UGB at the same time that PDD maintained that all development should occur within the UGB. She felt the draft appeared to suggest expansion of the UGB. Don McElroy, 120 West 30th Avenue, explained that he had owned a house in the West University neighborhood for 20 years and that he looked forward to alley improvements. He related that he had read MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session an article in The Register-Guard the previous weekend that included the amount of money the alley project could cost, and it had given him pause. He asked that the City make sure to educate everyone regarding the costs. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, stated that he was an applicant for the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA). He opined that while he might not be the most qualified candidate, he spent more time with the board than any other candidate. He felt there was great value in the work of the LRAPA. He averred the local airshed was not well-addressed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) because the department offices were located in Portland and officials were less familiar with it. He said City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated in a 2003 legal opinion that when the at-large position on the LRAPA board would expire in March 2005, the Eugene representative must take that position. He believed that the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 468A(120) was clear in this regard as it specified that an at-large member was only a participant if the board did not have five members or if there was an even number serving on the board. He encouraged the council to direct the City Manager Dennis Taylor to solicit an expedited opinion from legal counsel for LRAPA's board to retain one at-large board member and appoint a second one at a time when Eugene would seat its new representative. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and opened the floor for councilor comments and questions. Councilor Pap6 thanked those who testified. He wished to compliment in particular the work of the group CAFHN. He commended their testimony and their research and materials, adding that the latter was very thorough. He asked the City Manager if the council would be working out a process and whether it was getting too far ahead of the Planning Commission. City Manager Taylor reported that he had conferred with Interim Director of Planning and Development Susan Muir and members of the neighborhood. He said Ms. Muir was working on the issue and would be responding to their concerns, specifically what kind of proposal would be made to the Planning Commission and how the options could be furthered refined. He offered to provide a written response from Ms. Muir to address the concerns regarding building height and mass. Councilor Pap6 responded that he hoped the planning would be fully vetted prior to coming before the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. City Manager Taylor called it an important conversation to have with all neighborhoods. Councilor Pap6 expressed appreciation for the testimony from the firefighters. He clarified that Station 9 was staffed at 75 percent but did not have an engine company. Councilor Pap6 observed that the Santa Clara park issue had brought the community together. He thanked the SCCSPOS members for their testimony. Continuing, Councilor Pap6 asked the City Manager to respond to testimony about the draft PROS plan and potential involvement of SDC money. City Manager Taylor replied that the draft plan was a proposal from the Mayor's committee that was working its way toward council consideration and adoption and/or modification. He did not believe that the proposal involved SDCs. Councilor Pap6 related that he had been contacted by some concerned citizens whose property had been listed in the plan. Councilor Taylor thanked all who spoke at the Public Forum. She supported taking the time necessary to formulate a good proposal for the CAFHN group. She admired the work they were doing. She opined it MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session was important to take the time to do nodal development, or whatever nomenclature it fell under, correctly and to fully involve the citizens. Councilor Taylor congratulated the Nectar Way/Dillard Road citizens and the SCCSPOS people for forming an alliance. She felt they had much in common as they were both dedicated to doing what they thought was right for their respective communities. She wanted to know who paid for the Santa Clara parks survey. She thought it was "push polling" and that it was inappropriate. City Manager Taylor responded that the City paid for the survey. Councilor Ortiz also thanked everyone for coming to the Public Forum. She thanked the members of the firefighters' union in particular for coming out and sharing information with the council. Councilor Kelly also thanked everyone for coming down to speak. He thanked Ms. Perle for bringing copies of the Santa Clara parks survey for the council. He had been involved with a number of surveys and thought it was not unusual to ask questions in the ways that the survey had sought to do. He said, however, that this strategy was effective only if the statements made to the survey-respondent were absolute fact. He questioned whether the statements in the survey would qualify as fact. Councilor Bettman conveyed her gratitude to those who testified. She understood that the council had not approved the draft Parks and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, but had merely voted to accept it. Regarding the CAFHN and CNR issues, Councilor Bettman felt the issues could be resolved by more advance work with neighborhood representatives. She thought the CAFHN proposal was modest and was in line with the standards for nodal development. She remarked that since staff's objective was to remove obstacles to higher density projects in neighborhoods, would not additional regulation in terms of standards be considered obstacles? She wondered how the City would be able to implement character standards in the face of Ballot Measure 37. She noted she had requested a work session on mixed-use development. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes April 11, 2005, Work Session April 11, 2005, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of March 17, March 24, March 31, April 7, April 14, 2005 D. Resolution 4834 Approving the Eugene-Springfield Five Year Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development for Submission to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development E. Approval of 2005-06 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships, and American Dream Downpayment Initiative Programs F. Adoption of Resolution 4835 Adopting the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the Standard for Incident Management in the City of Eugene G. Approval of Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations from the Hearing Official and Adoption of Resolution 4833 Forming a Local Improvement District for Alley MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session Paving in 23 Various Alley Locations in The West University Neighborhood Generally Bounded by Willamette Street, 19th Avenue, Kincaid Street, and Franklin Boulevard (Job #4172, 4309, 4310) Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman stated that she previously submitted minutes corrections. She asked to pull items C, D, and G from the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly said he also submitted minutes corrections electronically. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the minutes corrections. Councilor Taylor indicated she would have also pulled Item G. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items C, D and G passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the recommendation from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations on House Bill 2608 to change it to Priority 2 Oppose. Councilor Bettman averred the bill would discriminate against people who live and work in the community. She thought the council needed to take a stand on it regardless of whether the bill gained traction in the Oregon Legislature. She predicted that, should this bill not move, other bills like it would be presented in time. She underscored that the bill would not make citizens more secure. She predicted that terrorists would be able to falsify documents and receive driver's licenses while it would not be easy for people who were merely living and working in the country to gain the documents needed for them. Councilor Kelly indicated his support for the motion and noted that both the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) had taken a stand against the bill. He pointed out that naturalization could take ten years. Councilor Ortiz reiterated that EPD Chief Bob Lehner had recommended opposing the bill. She also wished to call attention to the probability that not only would people be more likely to drive without a license, they would also be more likely to drive uninsured which would increase the liability for members of the community. Councilor Pap~ understood the bill to indicate that people had to be in the state legally but that it did not specifically call for citizenship. He did not see it as an issue of homeland security. He believed a driver's license to be a privilege and not a right. Councilor Pryor commented that he had a difficult time deciding how to vote on this, but based upon the recommendation of Chief Lehner he would support it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Councilor Taylor averred that the bill did not require citizenship and did not constitute discrimination. She noted that 39 states already required proof that a person was in the country legally prior to granting a driver's license. Councilor Poling concurred. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, Kelly, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Solomon, Poling, Taylor and Pap6 voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and the amendment passed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy moved on to Item D, the resolution to approve the Eugene/Springfield Consolidated Plan. Councilor Bettman said it would be awkward to address her concerns because the councilors did not have a copy of the plan in the agenda packets, she did not have the requested specific amending language to the plan, and the plan was required to be adopted by May 15. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to delete the word 'rental' from the heading of the table at the top of page 54. Councilor Kelly requested, should the other proposed amendments be of a "surgical quality," that they be bundled. Councilor Bettman said she spoke to staff and they were amenable to the edit. Councilor Solomon asked PDD Grants Manager Linda Dawson to speak to the amendment. Ms. Dawson said the proposed word change was in line with the intent of both cities. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to delete references to alley improvements and to references to code changes as it pertained to the City of Eugene. Councilor Bettman said, in terms of zoning issues, the plan could be amended afterward. She felt the council needed to give the City Manager policy direction on the issue of mixed-use development. Regarding alley and street improvements, she averred that should the council be able to see the plan, it would understand the need to make this amendment. City Manager Taylor stated that the plan was available in the council office and on the Internet. He said he had only just heard the suggestion for amendments from Councilor Bettman earlier in the afternoon. He asked the council if it wanted to hold up the plan and defer action to the work session scheduled for May 11. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Councilor Bettman approved of this idea. She related that she had looked for the plan on the Web site and had discovered that it was a 94-page document. Mayor Piercy determined from the council that the item could be postponed until the work session scheduled for May 11. Mayor Piercy moved on to Consent Calendar Item G. Councilor Taylor indicated that she opposed the entire project because she did not approve of this method of forcing people to pay for assessments. She wished to find a way, in particular, to exempt the Eugene Garden Club. She commented that it was not right to classify the club as a business. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the only way to exempt the Eugene Garden Club would be to exempt the entire alley from the plan. He explained that the code established who would be assessed and one could not change the code except by ordinance with a six-month lead time. Councilor Taylor asked if there was a way to change the club's classification. Mr. Klein replied that he had not looked into this. He said that the item could be postponed. Councilor Taylor moved to table the item. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman intended to vote against the motion. She did not believe there was any substantiation that paving alleys reduced crime. She also thought it would set a precedent for City-initiated local improvement districts (LIDs). She predicted that, coupled with the "relentless pursuit of infill" in existing stable neighborhoods, it would create incompatible development and a huge financial burden on areas in which alley improvements were made. She said mixed-use development, as currently proposed and enabled by alley improvements, would replicate the exact problems that manifested in the West University Neighborhood in other "inner-city" neighborhoods. Councilor Pap6 applauded the work of Councilor Kelly and the West University Neighborhood Task Force (WUNTF). He noted that the process had been underway for two years and had not arisen over night. He thought the recommendations, of which alley improvements were one, had been the result of careful review. He agreed there was a problem throughout the city and that the City should find a way to finance and improve the alleys to a reasonable level of functionality and use. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for their involvement through the process. He noted that approximate numbers were discussed with any inquiring property owner. Also, he said, similar estimations of cost were discussed at the hearing. He pointed out that he lived in that neighborhood. He opined that unimproved alleys held more trash and were more likely to be in neighborhoods that reflected that lack of improvement. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. Councilor Taylor hoped it would be possible to obtain information on how to reduce the assessment to the Eugene Garden Club. City Manager Taylor responded that the council could choose to use its MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session contingency money to help the club, but that this would set a precedent. He said he would provide a memorandum to the council on the possibility of reclassification for the club. Mayor Piercy called for a five-minute break at 8:56 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as an Intergovernmental Entity; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date; and A Resolution Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Taylor asked Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffler to outline for the public the nature of the hearing. Mr. Klein clarified that the public hearing was not only on the ordinance creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) but was also on the resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds. Mr. Ruffler stated that the regional wastewater program was managed under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County. He said the agreement was established in 1977 and changes to the agreement were now being proposed to align it with operational conditions and public policies that had evolved in the wastewater program over the last 25 years. He indicated that changes were also being recommended that would facilitate the issuance of revenue bonds by the MWMC, necessary to the 2004 Facilities Plan and related capital projects for the regional wastewater program. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, speaking on behalf of the Lane County Home Builders Association (LCHBA), requested that the record be kept open until May 13 at 5 p.m. She noted a conversation that she had with MWMC attorney Dave Jewett earlier in the day and indicated that it seemed the association's issues might "disappear." She explained that the LCHBA's main issue had been with how much control the MWMC would have over the adoption of SDCs, because that was something that the State Legislature "intended the elected officials to do." She stated that based upon the new language in the Eugene ordinance and resolution, Mr. Jewett had interpreted it to say that it would be the council's purview to adopt the SDC methodology. She remarked that this interpretation would "delight" the LCHBA. She indicated that it would be beneficial to receive affirmation of this interpretation in writing. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Pap6, moved to keep the record open until 5 p.m. on May 13. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibiting Smoking in Public Structures; Adding Section 6.232 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section 6.990 of that Code; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor said this item had been discussed since the council first revisited the issue of smoking in outdoor areas. He stated that the ordinance was designed to create a moratorium on new outdoor smoking areas while the council considered new standards. He asked Permit Review Manager Keli Osborn to speak about the ordinance. Ms. Osborn explained that the new ordinance had been crafted at the request of the council and proposed a prohibition on smoking in new outdoor smoking areas. She said the moratorium would be on use and not on construction. She related that it had been suggested by the council as an interim measure until the council could consider standards for outdoor smoking areas. She noted that the work session scheduled for May 23 would take another look at outdoor smoking area standards. In conclusion, she reported that one proposed outdoor smoking area was in the permitting pipeline as a part of a much larger construction project on River Road. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Osbom said she expected the moratorium would be months in duration and not years. Councilor Kelly noted that he did not see a tentative action date scheduled for this ordinance. Ms. Osborn replied that she had anticipated the council would take action at the current meeting. City Manager Taylor clarified that it would take a unanimous consent to adopt the ordinance at the present meeting, so if one councilor objected it would be scheduled for the next meeting. Councilor Pap6 declared that he would not be able to pass the ordinance without a sunset date. Councilor Bettman stated that she wished to avoid, through this moratorium, the proliferation of more outdoor smoking areas that were inconsistent with the original intent of council. Ms. Osborn said any operation could submit a permit and it could be approved according to existing standards. She added that the Permit and Information Center had posted fliers to help make the public aware that the council was considering this moratorium. Councilor Bettman was amenable to a sunset date and suggested that early fall would be appropriate. She favored adoption at the present meeting. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Bob Jensen, 86635 Pine Grove Road, stated that he could not point to the smoking ordinance as the reason that the Wild Duck Restaurant had closed, but felt that it did "put a hole in the social fabric" of the enterprise. Regarding concerns expressed about employees working in outdoor smoking areas, Mr. Jensen suggested that protective masks would provide sufficient mitigation. He said many industries used such masks to provide safety for employees. He commented that heated smoking areasare provided for the "pariahs" MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session who smoke cigarettes, a legal activity, and an employee could safely enter those areas with such a mask. He noted that the reason he did not construct a smoking area for his establishment was that he did not have the money to build a nice area compatible with the rest of the building. In closing, Mr. Jensen asked if the intent was to limit smoking altogether or if the intent was truly to provide safety for the employee. Stewart Stephens, 21 West 6~ Avenue, stated that he was a bartender. He remarked that the bar had been dealing with the smoking issue for quite some time. He related that he sometimes walked into the bar to find it completely empty and the smoking area completely full. He said customers wanted a comfortable place to smoke but the City forced the bar to expose its customers to the elements. He noted that the Hilton Hotel had a floor dedicated to smoking rooms and employees worked on that floor. He did not understand why the bars were being targeted. He alleged that the restrictions were in violation of the Oregon Smoke-Free Workplace laws, specifically Oregon Revised Statute 433.850. Joel Pomerantz, 1171 Risden Place, representing the Oregon Restaurant Association (ORA), requested that the record be kept open until the end of the week in order for the council to seek a legal opinion on Mr. Stephens' testimony. He related that it had been brought to his attention that the ordinance could potentially be in violation of Ballot Measure 37. He felt it was clear from testimony and discussions he had with local bar operators that business people in Eugene had sought to cooperate with the City and did not disagree with the general intent of the council. He thanked the council for its consideration. Anthony DeSiena, 1940 Parliament Street, physician, stated that 53,000 people die annually from second- hand smoke. He said it was now known that second-hand smoke was the leading cause of breast cancer, diagnosed in 273,000 women annually. He averred that in areas where smoking laws had been put into effect, such as New York City and areas of California where business could be monitored through sales tax receipts, a ten-percent increase in business had been observed. He underscored that 80 percent of the population did not smoke. Regarding the use of a breathing mask, Dr. DeSiena did not believe such a requirement would work. He averred there was no viable scientific evidence that smoking rooms with 25 percent open space, as per current construction standards, provided protection. He asserted that when winterized, the smoking rooms became more closed and the purpose of the City Council's ordinance was defeated. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Pap6, moved to keep the record open until 5 p.m. on May 13. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in opposition. Councilor Pap6 asked Mr. Klein to respond to allegations of potential conflicts with the Oregon Revised Statute or Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Klein replied that the ballot measure dealt with land use regulations and this was not one of those. He added that even if it was a land use, Ballot Measure 37 exempted public health and safety. Regarding ORS 433.850, he said he would check with City Attorney Jerry Lidz, who worked on the ordinance, and provide the council with a memorandum in response to that concern. Councilor Kelly supported the inclusion of a sunset date in the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session Councilor Bettman asked if the issue could be considered at the May 18 work session. She felt it was urgent as more outdoor smoking areas could be built in the interim. Mr. Klein stated that if a building permit was not in possession by March 1, such a structure would not be grandfathered in. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session ATTACHMENT F MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 11, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council. A. ACTION: Resolution 4834; A Resolution to Approve the Eugene-Springfield Five Year Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development for Submission to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Mayor Piercy explained that this was a continuation of a Consent Calendar item at the previous meeting, held on May 9. City Manager Taylor noted that the motion was already on the table. He said Linda Dawson, Grants Manager for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), was available to answer questions. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for refining the language. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to delete references in the plan regarding the City of Eugene's funding of street, alley, and traffic signal improvements in eligible neighborhoods on Table 2B, in the text and in the stated objectives unless the infrastruc- ture improvements were located contiguous with a publicly subsidized low- or very low- income housing development. Ms. Bettman averred that money slated for the alleviation of poverty and homelessness would be spent on projects that were not a high priority because of generally permissive language in the Consolidated Plan. Mr. Kelly appreciated the fine tuning of the language that allowed infrastructure improvements in combination with a housing project. He pointed out that this plan was part of the Community Develop- ment Block Grant (CDBG) process. He said historically the majority of the money had been spent to help various social service agencies and requests always outweighed funding capacity. While he believed there was a need for traffic calming and signalization, he did not think CDBG money was the "appropriate pot." Ms. Taylor disagreed. She thought that low-income people had a legitimate need for things aside from housing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 1 Work Session City Manager Taylor said there was an approximate $5 million backlog in areas that met CDBG eligibility levels and this was why the advisory committee recommended keeping this language in the plan. Ms. Bettman commented that when she went through the testimony heard by the Housing Policy Board (HPB) she found no suggestion that more money was needed to improve streets. She underscored that what was needed most were more housing units. She pointed out that it was a council priority to address homelessness. Mr. Poling asked if projects still had to come before the City Council for approval prior to expenditure of the money. City Manager Taylor affirmed this. Mr. Pap6 ascertained from Ms. Dawson that the amendment would limit the range of options that could be considered in the future. Mr. Pap6 said he would not want to limit such options. Mr. Kelly averred that the council would be "focusing" the funding on the highest priorities. He acknowledged that the council had final approval of the dispensation of CDBG funds. However, he felt the council always made the approval in deference to the CDBG Advisory Committee recommendation. He underscored that to date, the council had not changed the recommendations the committee had made. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Dawson reiterated that proposed funding.allocations came before the council and the council could choose whether to fund a project. Ms. Taylor stated that it was just as important to prevent homelessness as to address it once it happened. She felt that people were sometimes made homeless by assessments on streets and alleys. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the last Projected Outcome by de- leting reference to Eugene Land Use Code to read 'On-going review of Springfield De- velopment Code.' Ms. Bettman explained that a couple of the issues were not identified well in the tables. She said the amendment would not preclude the HPB from coming before the council and indicating it had identified a problem with the code that was an obstacle. She thought the plan, as written, was already determining a policy direction that sought to work with the cities to amend the land use regulations to allow multi-family units on single-family lots. She thought this to be a broad land use decision that the council had yet to discuss. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly related that HPB Chair John VanLandingham supported this amendment. He felt the amend- ment would not prevent anyone from addressing one of the issues in the land use code that created an unintended challenge for low income housing. He averred that the language was tantamount to "putting the cart before the horse" as the council should be the entity to review land use code first. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Dawson stated that the HPB would continue to pursue MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 2 Work Session regulatory barriers to affordable housing because this was part of its mission, though the amendment, if passed, would remove this from being a stated outcome in the plan. The vote was a tie; 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in fa- vor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Papd, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the amendment and the amendment passed. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the last Projected Outcome to de- lete reference to Eugene City Council to read, 'Bring to Springfield City Council in 2007, implement in 2008.' Ms. Bettman opined that the language on page 55 of the plan predetermined and prejudiced a land use issue outcome. She averred the amendment would not preclude the ability of the HPB to present problems that might arise in the code; it would merely bring such matters before the City Council first. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Dawson to speak to the amendment. Ms. Dawson said the HPB would continue to discuss the issue in both cities over time. Mr. Pap6 affirmed from Ms. Dawson that the HPB had reviewed the whole document. Ms. Dawson said the issues were talked about by the HPB and were left in the plan because it was felt to be important to address such land use issues in both cities. Ms. Solomon iterated that this had been discussed at the last HPB meeting and that the whole group had agreed that the group was a consortium and that all three jurisdictions should be reviewing barriers to low- income housing development. She thought the City of Eugene should stay on board and indicated she would not support the amendment. Ms. Taylor called it a neighborhood protection matter. She averred that there should be a good reason before apartment houses and duplexes were allowed in "unsuitable places." Mr. Kelly felt the issue was one of who would lead in developing changes to the code. Mr. Pap6 reiterated that the code would not change prior to being vetted up through the normal process, which was to come through the Planning Commission and before the City Council. He wanted to hear any good ideas the HPB might have and underscored that it was still up to the council to adopt them. Ms. Bettman asserted that the language as it stood set a timeline and circumvented the council's normal procedure and would prejudice the outcome. She felt the discussion needed policy direction from the council first. She added that the language reflected work that the Planning Commission was already doing on mixed-use development. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Kelly said in the context of the whole plan these issues were minor, but he was feeling that the time for the council to comment on the issue was at this meeting. He indicated he would vote against the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman opposed the main motion, though she acknowledged that there was a lot in the plan that was very valuable in terms of data and the trends analysis. She thought the intent of utilizing federal money to alleviate homelessness and poverty "was great." She did not think the plan had received adequate scrutiny from the council given the budgetary authority and the changes to policy it invoked. Ms. Bettman predicted that CDBG funding would now be used to pave streets and alleys. She alleged that an "industry lobbyist" sat on the HPB and opined this was inappropriate. She averred that Roxie Cuellar, who represented the Lane County Home Builders Association, had talked about development standards playing a large role in the cost of a housing project, whether it was an affordable housing project or one for the private market. She suggested that Ms. Cuellar was lobbying to have the HPB identify the pre- application issues and raise those issues with staff, particularly those that could reduce costs. She thought Ms. Cuellar was "advocating for the industry using the leverage of the HPB." She felt the Consolidated Plan laid the groundwork for the predetermination and prejudicing of land use issues and because it was brought up through the Consent Calendar this would escape the scrutiny of the council. The vote on the main motion was a tie; 4:4; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Poling voting to approve and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted to ap- prove the Consolidated Plan as amended and the motion passed. Ms. Taylor requested that a work session be held on the Consolidated Plan when it next came up for approval. Mayor Piercy asked councilors to make a concerted effort to see what was coming up and to "get out in front of it." She averred that if an issue was something that needed greater consideration, bringing it up in advance would allow time to give it the appropriate amount of attention. B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Standards for Police Uniforms; Adding Section 2.665 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date City Manager Taylor stated that the Police Commission had brought this issue forward. He presented Police Commission member John Brown to the council to speak on it. Mr. Brown called the item "proactive and preemptive," rather than responsive. He said the commission observed some events in the community that supported passage of this particular ordinance. He cited a complaint filed with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) that an officer had been witnessed sleeping under a tree, but that officer had, in fact, been a security officer for a shopping facility. He related that he participated in numerous police "ride-alongs" and had witnessed arrests in the University of Oregon (UO) campus area involving both EPD officers and the University's Department of Public Safety (UO-DPS) officers. Feedback from those arrests, he related, indicated a public opinion that too many EPD officers responded to such arrests and that it was "overkill" when, in fact, there were both EPD and UO-DPS officers present. He averred that students could not tell one officer from the other. Mr. Brown stated that the inability citizens had to regularly distinguish private security officers from EPD officers created difficulties. He noted that in the downtown core alone, there were officers from five or MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 4 Work Session six different security companies. He said there were no laws prohibiting security officers from looking like EPD officers, nor were there any rules governing the use of the word 'police' on such uniforms. He reported that State Senator Floyd Prozanski sponsored a bill that sought to address this issue. It had passed the State Senate and was now before the State House of Representatives. Mr. Brown listed three reasons there should be an ordinance governing standards for police uniforms: 1) Uniforms could be misleading and confusing to the public and members of the public may ap- proach the wrong personnel in an emergency situation; 2) If someone mistook a security officer for a police officer, it could present a safety issue for the security officer; 3) The ordinance would be complaint-driven and would seek voluntary compliance before any penalties would be put into effect. Mr. Brown conveyed the Police Commission recommendation that the effective date be delayed so that it would not create a financial burden on private security. Continuing, Mr. Brown encouraged the council to move ahead with a public hearing. He hoped that it would be scheduled before the end of the school year so that University of Oregon students could participate. Mr. Brown affirmed for Mr. Poling that there had been an incident in which a security person was mistaken for an EPD officer. He explained that the security officer was attempting to handle a disturbance at a University dormitory that the SWAT Team had been called to and was unreachable via EPD radio frequencies. Mr. Poling indicated his support for the ordinance. He commented that the public was likely to confuse uniforms when in a crisis situation. He felt the UO-DPS uniform should be distinctive from the EPD uniform. Mr. Kelly thanked the Police Commission for its work. He favored moving the issue to a public hearing. He observed that he was not able to discern a UO-DPS officer from an officer of the EPD. Mr. Pap6 asked if the EPD could issue a complaint, given that the ordinance would be complaint-driven. Mr. Brown thought that anyone could file such a complaint. Ms. Ortiz welcomed the proposed ordinance. She said members of the community had complained to her that they were unable to tell the difference between private and public officers. Mayor Piercy asked if City staff was making the extra effort to make people affected by the ordinance aware of the public hearing. Mr. Brown replied that the stakeholders had been contacted. Mr. Pap6 asked what official authority the UO-DPS officers held. EPD Chief Bob Lehner responded that the authority came from the State. Director of the Department of Public Safety for the University of Oregon Tom Hicks explained that the authority of the DPS officers came from a State statute. The statute allowed officers to make arrests for probable cause and to stop and detain someone suspected of a crime. He noted that the City had recently MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 5 Work Session granted the DPS the authority to issue municipal citations for a select group of incidents. Mr. Hicks wished to point out that the UO-DPS officers wore a uniform that was "virtually identical" to those worn on other state university campuses. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Hicks said he was uncertain whether he would be able to institute a uniform change and that he would have to consult with his colleagues on other university campuses. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Brown stated that the commission had contacted the administration from the Lane County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) and the Oregon State Police (OSP). Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. Brown and the Police Commission for their work. C. WORK SESSION: Interstate 5/Franklin Boulevard Update The council was joined for thc item by Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department Chris Hem-y, Area 5 Planner for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Tom Boyatt, and consultant to ODOT from Kittclson Associates, Julia Kuhn. Mr. Henry stated that the first phase of the interchange project development formed a project management team of staff and local agencies, conducted a high-level inventory of infrastructure, and identified and interviewed a stakeholder group. He said the second phase would initiate a community dialogue with the stakeholders, planning commissions, and city councils in order to seek approval to move forward with more design and a third phase. Mr. Boyatt noted the information he was presenting was in the agenda item summary (MS). He said when he was before the council in November, ODOT's direction for planning before the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) process and the Phase 1 work were the topics of conversation. He stated that the planning before the NEPA process was primarily to determine whether or not the community was actually ready at the planning, policy, and construction prioritization levels to address a project such as the ramp to the interstate. He referred to the letter included in council packets from ODOT Region 2 Manager Jeff Scheick, which summed up the resolution of issues, stating that ODOT would proceed with the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III bridge package to replace the Willamette River Bridge and the design would accommodate ramps and their associated geometry. He showed a slide of the bridge area. Mr. Boyatt predicted, because of the distance and grade between Franklin Boulevard and Interstate 5, that ramp connections might not be able to touch the bridge. He added that connecting the ramps at the bridge could also preclude the possibility of widening the bridge at a future date. Mr. Boyatt stated that ODOT had committed $2.75 million to fund environmental impact statements (EIS) for the construction of ramps once the community had demonstrated its priority and support for the project at the planning and policy levels. He said the Phase 1 work plan had intended to check in with the community and use the process to identify community concerns and gauge the level of local support. This MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 6 Work Session had been used to develop the Phase 2 work plan. He noted that the AIS contained the consultant's summary memorandum. He called the process valuable in guiding the Phase 2 work plan and further refining the ongoing process. Continuing, Mr. Boyatt provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Phase 2 process. He related that the consultants had called the process a "community dialogue." He said there might not be a notice to proceed on the Phase 2 work until the middle of June of this year. He indicated that ODOT would initially meet with the Springfield/Eugene/Lane County (SEL) group, made up of city managers and the county administrator, to refine how the project would be able to interface with elected bodies and planning commissions. He commented that planning projects helped ODOT be successful in building technical information. Because it was an interstate freeway and "the backbone of West Coast economy," he noted there was some interface with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and its interchange designers and overseers. Mr. Boyatt said technical analysis would be conducted in five segments: 1) An environmental scan; 2) A conceptual design; 3) Preliminary engineering; 4) Preliminary traffic analysis; 5) A look at finance options. Mr. Boyatt predicted there would be a significant price tag for the entire project. He hoped through the course of the project, discrete segments could be identified as stand alone projects through the research and technical work. Mr. Boyatt stated that the environmental scan would be a high level review of existing information. He said it was hoped that ODOT could glean what it could from the detour structure work and from the replacement structure work. He reiterated that ODOT would pay for a site visit and the mining of the data that was there in order to better understand the environmental conditions. He felt conceptual design was fairly self-explanatory. Preliminary engineering was important, he said, due to federal standards for interchange spacing on Interstate 5. He pointed out that it would also aid in understanding how the interchanges would work, how likely it would be to obtain federal exceptions and approvals, and feasibility of the design and ensuing cost estimates. He predicted that financing would be critical as resources were getting "thinner." Mr. Boyatt thought one resource could be tax increment financing. He remarked that when the public invested hundreds of millions of dollars, it became "immediately apparent" that the value of the land went up relative to the investment. He lauded public/private partnerships as a way to provide opportunities for bigger projects. In closing, Mr. Boyatt briefly reviewed the public process, planned to begin with stakeholder open houses. He said the project management team (PMT) would guide consultants through the process and would then review the results. He reiterated that the bulk of the project was the data development/technical portion and when that was completed the plan was to brief the planning commissions, the city officials, and two joint meetings with the oversight committee. He added that Phase 3 of the work plan would occur once the communities had given the "thumbs up" and agreed to undertake the necessary Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and TransPlan amendments. They hoped to draft a problem statement by the end of the process and to document everything that ODOT was doing with the public MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 7 Work Session process. He conveyed ODOT's hope that there would be enough money in the work plan to move forward with Phase 3 should the communities find the project had merit. He said ODOT staff was looking for affirmation from the Eugene City Council that the project was on the right track. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly ascertained from Mr. Boyatt that ODOT staff was seeking a "head nod" to embark on the Phase 2 portion of the project, consisting primarily of the public process. He shared his uncertainty as to whether the interchange should or would get built, but he supported the plan for Phase 2. He opined that the City needed to make the best use of existing river crossings given that it was not inclined to build additional crossings. He thought it important to involve affected neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly. She appreciated the process of scoping and defining the project and the involvement of the stakeholders prior to asking the council to give its approval of the project. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Boyatt stated that ODOT representatives would discuss with the SEL what the process would be to make the decision on the last phase. He said there were four people, three representing local governments and one from ODOT, that would make the "thumbs up or thumbs down" decision likely based on direction from elected officials. The discussion with the SEL would cover what relationship the representatives would have with the elected body. He thought the team could decide it needed joint elected officials meetings and other broad processes that were difficult to schedule, but this was uncertain at this point. He added that he would defer to each of the elected bodies to answer that question about its relationship to the project. Ms. Bettman averred that the City Council should be the body that ultimately approved or disapproved the project. She commented that the project would "suck every other transportation dollar out of the budget." She indicated she would not be supportive of letting the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) or the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) make the decision. In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Boyatt explained that because the grade to the bridge was too steep, the ramps would have to access the interstate north or south of the bridge. Ms. Ortiz averred that the freeway system in Southern California had abetted gang activity by providing easy access to the highway system. She asked if this was a consideration. Mr. Boyatt responded that this had not been discussed at this point. He commented that the transportation department had a difficult time with social discussions. He underscored that he wanted to ensure that any ideas that came to the table were discussed and worked through. He noted that he was aware that this sort of discussion occurred when the City of Portland was considering construction of it light rail facilities, adding that concerns expressed had not panned out to be true. Ms. Ortiz said her other concern lay in putting all of the City's "eggs in one basket." She noted safety issues on Beltline Road that warranted attention. Mr. Pryor indicated his support for the process and the project. He predicted the project could be a major asset to the community into the future. He agreed with the concept that at some point in the process policy makers should be involved in the decision. He thought one way this could occur would be through direction to the SEL representative by elected officials. He remarked that the SEL group did not just "go MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 8 Work Session make stuff up and agree," but rather that their actions were generally a reflection of their policy makers. In regard to funding, Mr. Pryor acknowledged there were many projects that needed to go on. He said as valuable as the project was, it was not likely that the City of Eugene could involve the "lion's share" of its transportation resources. Ms. Taylor agreed with much of what had been said. She thought the entire community should be involved in the discussion. She remarked that she had been alarmed to hear that so few people would be involved in the final decision. Mr. Boyatt responded that he perceived that the three people would represent the will of each of the three general purpose governments. Ms. Taylor averred the City Council should be involved in the final decision. She asked if this bridge would provide relief for the Ferry Street Bridge. Mr. Boyatt replied that such questions would be addressed by Phase 2 of the project. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Boyatt said it was not possible to present design ideas at this phase of the project. He added that a nationally known designer, Brian Ray, would be doing the design work when the time came. Mr. Pap6 thought the ramps from Franklin Boulevard would be a wonderful addition to the system. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding the height of the bridge, Mr. Boyatt stated that bridge height had some relationship with maritime law. He added that the geometry of the bridge was partially related to the difference between the grades to the south and north of the river. Mr. Pap6 expressed disappointment that this was being parsed into two projects. He wondered if there would be economies of scale should the two jobs be conducted simultaneously. Mr. Boyatt responded that there was some hope on the part of ODOT that the construction jobs would come back together in time to realize some efficiencies. He added that it depended on the will of the affected communities and the processes involved with the plan amendments and NEPA. He said, in response to another question, that the temporary bridge was bound by OTIA III constraints to come down by 2012. Mr. Pap6 pointed out that Mr. Poling's neighborhood and the neighborhood to the north of the river would be affected should the ramps be located there. He recommended their inclusion in the stakeholders groups. Mr. Poling favored the project overall. He conveyed his approval for the Phase 2 project and thanked ODOT for specifically involving the Citizens Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park. He agreed with Mr. Pap~ that the Harlow Neighbors should be involved in the process. Mayor Piercy expressed cautious optimism for the project. Mr. Kelly underscored that the City Council should be able to vote on whether to sign off on the project. He recognized the challenges of gathering the Joint Elected Officials and suggested that each body meet separately. Mr. Kelly expressed frustration that the project had been divided into two segments. He hoped the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 9 Work Session legislature could be convinced to change the OTIA rules so that both the ramp and the bridge could be constructed and some savings realized. Ms. Bettman reiterated her objection to allowing the SEL, MPC, or MPO make the final decision. She asserted again that the City Council should have the final say. Mr. Boyatt responded that the Eugene City Council absolutely had the power to make a yay or nay vote and direct its representative to relay its decision. Ms. Bettman wanted the process to be delineated ahead of time so that the representative would not have veto power and potentially circumvent the will of the council. Mr. Kelly pointed out that when a TransPlan amendment was needed all three elected bodies had to sign off so it would not make sense to proceed with the foreknowledge that one elected body would object. He hoped that ODOT would get back to all three jurisdictions and the State to indicate that the City of Eugene would agree to Phase 2 but wanted to specify that its decision authority would be the council. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT G MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 18, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council. She announced that the council would begin with the second item on the agenda, a work session on the Santa Clara Community Park as Ms. Solomon had to leave the meeting early and wished to cast her vote on the item. A. WORK SESSION: Santa Clara Community Park Update City Manager Dennis Taylor asked Parks and Open Space Planning Manager Andrea Riner to provide a brief update. Ms. Riner said the agenda item summary (AIS) had outlined the information well. She pointed out that the AIS contained the findings of the telephone survey conducted in March, the findings of the appraisals requested by the council, and a recent letter from the McDougal Brothers' representative, Mike Evans. Ms. Ortiz appreciated the Santa Clara community coming out and showing support for the work. She noted that she had been quoted in The Register-Guard as needing more information. She felt she had learned what she needed to know at this point. She said Ms. Bettman would be bringing forth a motion and indicated her intent to support it. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to cease all action on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment for the McDougal/Santa Clara land swap urban growth boundary expansion and to instead pursue direct acquisition of an appropriately sized parcel in or out of the urban growth boundary to land bank for eventual development of a community park in Santa Clara. Ms. Bettman said the motion assumed there would be community involvement and took into account that there were no funds to actually develop the park. She averred the original direction to staff had been to move forward with land within the urban growth boundary (UGB) but they had not evaluated to any extent the broader picture of what might be available. Ms. Bettman believed that the McDougal Brothers would likely make $6 to $12 million from the property they would gain from the proposed trade as well as a $3 million tax write off on the property donated to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session the City and between $150,000 and $250,000 in systems development charge (SDC) credits. She thought the Metro Plan amendment and the eventual rezoning of the property represented extraordinary benefits as well. She felt the land swap would set a precedent and no other willing sellers would come forward because they would now know they could "leverage the City for multi-million dollar deals." Mr. Kelly called the issue a "tough one." He had initially thought the proposal had some merit as there was no question that Santa Clara needed and deserved a community park of a larger scale. While he appreciated the creativity of the original idea, he would support the motion. He supported acquiring a park site to land bank, but did not believe the land swap was in the best interest of the City. Mr. Kelly said the City needed to go through a City-wide planning process for growth that would include opportunity mapping, asset mapping, and density distribution and a determination of how much growth each neighborhood must absorb. He averred that without this process proposed growth planning was being done in isolation. Additionally, he felt this proposal was ahead of the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Plan discussion. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. Ms. Taylor offered a friendly amendment to the motion to change the word 'parcel' to 'parcels.' The maker and second of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor called the proposed development "inappropriate." She said it was wrong to change the UGB for a developer. She felt the survey was "terrible" and opined that it was "obviously designed" to persuade people. She reiterated her delight in the alliance formed between the Santa Clara park advocates and the people who sought to preserve a parcel of land in the Dillard Road/Nectar Way area. Mr. Pap6 was uncertain as to how to decide on this issue. He pointed out that there were greater community interests to take into account beside just what the north end of Santa Clara wanted as this park was slated to be a large park for all of the community to use. He was concerned about the commitment to a community park in that area the City had made to the people of Eugene and of the River Road/Santa Clara area in 1998 when placing the bond on the ballot. He wanted the funds that were allocated to remain in that area. He stressed that the council needed to work diligently to provide balance in park spaces throughout the city. Mr. Pap6 related that he met with Ms. Riner, staff and a constituent to try and work on this issue and a question had been raised as to whether Razor Park could be developed. Ms. Riner responded that it was part of the West Bank system along side the Willamette River. She recalled that there had been a planning process for that park and hundreds of people had looked at the plan. She said the planning process resulted in a decision to keep Razor Park as it was for natural resource uses. Mr. Pap6 wondered if there were other parcels along side the river that could be developed into a community park. Ms. Riner replied that the City had looked at a 40-acre parcel along the river and determined it would encounter many of the same issues: access, UGB expansion, impacts to neighbor- hoods, and no willing seller. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Riner said acquisition of park land along the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Willamette Greenway was a priority but the plans for acquisition centered on natural resource and trail values. Mr. Pap6 asked Ms. Riner to provide staff input on the suggestion that the Santa Clara Elementary School site be developed for park usage. Ms. Riner said the site was too small for a full service community park, though it could be appropriate for a neighborhood park. She stated that the City already owned several acres for a community park near the school, however. She indicated that the use of the site as a stand- alone community center was not desired because of maintenance and operations costs and also in terms of goals for a community park. She reiterated that it was a high priority to bring park uses and users together in a single location instead of having one site for one use and another for a different use. She hoped one park could provide opportunities for people with diverse recreational interests to come together in one location. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Riner affirmed that economies of scale would be realized in a larger park both in development and in ongoing programming and maintenance. She underscored the importance of coming up with an option that was the most efficient to operate. She cited the Amazon Park and Aquatic Center as an example of a large community park that worked well from an operations point of view. Mayor Piercy related that she had conversations with School District 4J representatives regarding the elementary school and they indicated there were public safety issues occurring there. She said the district believed the site had great potential for commercial development. She commented that as one thought about parks, one needed to think about how difficult "pocket parks" were for safety purposes in the community. She noted some of the mai or challenges existing parks already presented. Mayor Piercy conveyed her appreciation for the input from the neighborhood. She acknowledged that in addition to the people who spoke about farm land and traffic issues, there had also been a vocal minority that was supportive of the park because they believed it was something that would be wonderful for the future of the community. Ms. Bettman said no one objected to the placement of a park in that area. She reiterated that the issue lay in objections to the proposed housing and commercial developments. Regarding where the UGB should be expanded, she predicted that this Class 1 agricultural soil would be the least likely to be considered on its own merits to be brought into the UGB and developed. Ms. Bettman asserted that neighbors would not, as promised, be allowed to provide input into the design for the development of the properties should the land swap go through. She also averred that staff had indicated that no further transportation infrastructure would be needed in the area to meet the additional load the development would create. Ms. Solomon said she could not support a motion to cease all action. She believed this to be an opportunity to "kill a couple of birds with one stone." She felt the City still had the negotiating power to work toward a better deal. She asked staff to comment on whether the agreement could be modified. Ms. Riner stated that the deadline for this was in July and depending on what both parties agreed to do, the agreement would either lapse or be modified at that time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz called for the question. Mayor Piercy asked if the discussion could continue given that only two people were left in the queue to speak. Ms. Ortiz withdrew her call for the question. Mr. Pap6 indicated his opposition to the motion. He was concerned the City was not following through with the promise it made to River Road/Santa Clara residents in the bond measure of 1998 to provide a large community park for the area. He believed that only two parcels met the criteria, one by the river by Beltline Road and the property currently being considered. He said should this land swap be defeated, he intended to make a motion that the City go forth and try to acquire one of those properties either through purchasing it or through the condenmation process. Ms. Taylor commented that the City could buy 40 acres if it needed to. She advocated for using condemnation if necessary. She averred that the Amazon Park was "so full of stuff" that there was not a lot of park left. She suggested listening to the neighbors who have indicated they would be satisfied with several smaller parks. Ms. Ortiz said what caught her eye was that the proposal came from business interests and not from the interests of the community. She added that should Mr. Pap6 place another motion on the table to purchase land she would support it. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Or- tiz voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Pap6, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy said she felt this was in the best interest of the community. Ms. Solomon left the meeting at 12:35 p.m. Mr. Kelly remarked that it may become necessary for an imminent domain action. City Manager Taylor surmised that the council was asking staff to continue to look for viable options for a park, though the vote concluded the proposed transaction. He thought there would still be opportunities and that the council was aware of the will of the voters toward purchasing such a community park space. Mr. Pap6 reiterated that the swap had included removal of a property at the south end of the City from the UGB and buying it to preserve it for open space. City Manager Taylor said that part of the transaction was lost through the council action. Mr. Papfi said he would strongly object should anyone suggest that money set aside for parks in the north side of town be moved elsewhere. Ms. Bettman commented that while the Laurel Hill site "might have been a nice site to have" it entailed $950,000 of acquisition money and the property did not fall on the list of priorities. She opined that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 4 Work Session sometimes an opportunity was not really what was within policy or in the best interest of the City. Mr. Pryor indicated he was amenable to the outcome of the vote. He called the move toward acquisition of park land in that area of town "the critical piece." He felt the decision had been difficult. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the deal was not a swap in the sense that the City was going to be given this choice piece of land; the land in the south hills would have cost money. Mayor Piercy underscored the commitment of all of the councilors toward park development in the River Road/Santa Clara area. B. WORK SESSION: Consideration of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Action on Two Grant Applications City Manager Taylor said Mr. Pap~ had brought this forward for reconsideration after the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) vote concerning two grant applications. He stated that because the grant applications were due on May 19 he and the Mayor had agreed to place this item on the agenda for the current agenda. Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Kurt Yeiter explained that this was the time of year the biennial Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant applications were due, adding that the grants for site-specific planning for mixed-use centers were due on May 23. He said three TGM applications had been packaged for the CCIGR and two of them were authorized. The third application had a little more lead time, as the City had to state its intentions by mid-June, and involved a request for technical assistance, i.e., a team of consultants who would look at the City's land use procedures. Mr. Yeiter further explained that the other grant that had been rejected was from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He stated that the application had to be sent by FedEx within an hour in order to qualify for it. He explained that the EPA grant would provide the City of Eugene with a team of experts and not direct funding. He related that Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division of PDD Richie Weinman thought Eugene stood a good chance of attaining the EPA grant, though only six cities would qualify, because of the City's past commitment and activities in trying to implement mixed-use centers and "smart growth" principles. Hc underscored that staff's position was that staff wanted to apply for as many grants as could be handled over the next two years. Mr. Pap~ thanked the Mayor and council for allowing this item to take precedence on the agenda. Mr. Papfi, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that thc City of Eugene apply for the Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth award. Ms. Taylor ascertained from Mr. Yeiter that the timeline for the third TGM grant was not urgent as a letter of intent was not due until June. Mr. Yeiter clarified that this was not the subject of the current motion. Mr. Kelly commented that of the four grants the CCIGR considered, this grant was the only one that offered staffing and not funding. He felt some frustration that the immediacy of the deadline for the EPA MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 5 Work Session grant did not allow the City Council to "shape or tweak" the application. He thought that not having a local context was both beneficial and detrimental for bringing in a team of help from elsewhere. He noted that the language said the City needed help in identifying and removing barriers and reinforcing and reshaping. He opined that the application should have listed the 19 Growth Management Policies and stated that the City had mixed-use development as a goal and then asked for advice as to how the City could better get to that goal. He felt the words 'remove barbers' were both denotative and connotative senses of"let the flood gates open" and did not speak to the positive elements of the growth standards. Ms. Bettman said she staunchly objected to both of the grants. She thought the grants were not related to adopted policy and, therefore, should not be moved forward. She asserted that the EPA grant was based on "morphed" policy that she thought was a direction that staff wished to go in though the council had not given that direction. She alleged this was articulated in the last section of (4), which she found "very troubling." She quoted a portion of the application which seemed to indicate that support for the City's mixed-use development strategy was the long-term answer to the challenges the City was facing and called the strategy the embodiment of"the heart of 'smart growth' philosophy." She agreed that the council had worked on nodal development, but said it had not held the policy discussion wherein mixed- use could be substituted for nodal development. She asserted the application was questioning the City's Growth Management Policies and pointed out that they had undergone a very extensive public process. She called it "astounding" that the grant could be construed to say the City was questioning those policies. She said when the council had discussed nodal development it had been determined that the real problem with the strategy was that it was too "one-size-fits-all. She felt the dynamic in both of the applications was code-centered and would create a city-wide situation when what was really needed was to examine specific areas and determine how best the goals could be met in those areas. Mr. Poling stated that he had reviewed the draft earlier in the morning and had seen nothing in it that suggested that action would be required as a result of recommendations. Rather, he related, the grant would provide a team of experts that would come in and review what the City was doing and suggest ways to address some of the problems the City was having. He averred that some of those problems were due to past regulatory and procedural changes to the code. He called the application another "piece of the puzzle" to help the City reach what it seemed the City wanted to do for many years, which was to develop "smart growth" and nodal or mixed-use Development. He thought experts from across the country would have more experience and expertise than anyone at the table and would be able to provide suggestions, guidelines, and recommendations based on what had been done in the past and what had and had not worked. He opined the council would be missing a golden opportunity. He pointed out that a broad-based local team would help the EPA team and the results would go back into the public process. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Mr. Poling. He asked if it would be possible to "tweak" the direction of the team. Mr. Yeiter replied that he believed the parameters for the local team would be flexible. He added that the City had not used this EPA program before and he was not sure how rigid its team would be with its procedures. Mr. Pap6 reiterated that anything the EPA team would come up with as a recommendation would be subject to review by the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council should it so choose. He asked what resources the EPA grant would require from the City. Mr. Yeiter responded that the main work would be staff hours for the educating of the EPA team on the City's land use code, its development standards, infrastructure standards, and financing mechanisms. He said once that work was done it would be primarily the EPA team working with the City's technical advisors in developing recommendations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 6 Work Session He stressed that it would take additional resources to pursue any of the recommendations at that point. Mr. Pap~ remarked that information was wonderful and information the community could get on how to move forward some of its ideals would be a boon and should not be overlooked. Mr. Pryor recalled that when the City was working on TransPlan, a definition of nodal development had been built up around it. He thought the degree to which it varied from mixed-use development would be worthy of a great discussion and it would benefit the council to discuss the similarities and differences between the two. He said it did not, however, make his "antennae quiver" over this particular grant application. He averred that money spent to get more information and study the issue would not tie anyone's hands regarding a potential sound discussion of the issue. Mayor Piercy observed that staff seemed to say that nodal development and mixed-use were the same thing while the councilors seemed not to know what mixed-use development was. She urged staff to schedule a work session on it so that the council could gain clarity on the issue. Mr. Yeiter responded that while the item had not been scheduled, a work session was planned. Mayor Piercy stated that the EPA grant was very much in line with the City of Eugene's Growth Management Policies. She said she had read in the document a desire to lead into more locally sensitive planning. She was inclined to believe the item should be moved forward. Mr. Kelly wanted to see a dramatic increase in infill and development and significant changes in density and he believed the City needed those changes. He disagreed with the proponents of the grant, because of the way that it was phrased, because he thought it could put the City in a "rather narrow hallway." He felt things developed a momentum. He said just as the council gave lip service to its policies and the public process that generated them and gave credibility to the TransPlan, credibility would also be given to recommendations that came from this process because of the "national experts and local team" that put them together. He averred it would make the recommendations more difficult to critique and work through. He opined that the staff in the Planning and Development Department, the council, and the community collectively "had the smarts" to do this. He suggested that more funding was needed for "planning folks" and more political will was needed around the council table to move things forward. Ms. Bettman reiterated that this was not a grant, "experts" would be sent, and the City would have to match this with local resources to do the work. She felt the investment of resources in this work would force the results on City policy. She asked Mr. Pap6 if he would be willing to take a friendly amendment to remove language she felt questioned the validity of the City's growth management policies. Mr. Yeiter was uncertain whether any changes could be made given the tight time frame. Ms. Bettman repeated that the document questioned the validity of the City's Growth Management Policies and did not reinforce them. She asserted that the grant would commit the City to follow up the results with action. Regarding the local team, Ms. Bettman thought the recommendation in the application was unbalanced because it included the Lane Transit District (LTD), the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Lane County Home Builders Association. She opined that 1000 Friends of Oregon really amounted to one person who had a minimal MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 7 Work Session amount of time to devote to the process as opposed to the Lane County Home Builders Association and chamber, which paid people to represent them. She called this representation a "lop-sided list of entities" that did not constitute a public involvement process. Mayor Piercy asked if the list of possible contributors to the local team constricted the council from adding other groups. Mr. Yeiter replied that it did not. Mayor Piercy asked if it would be possible to put in the council's intention to broaden that group of people. Mr. Yeiter affirmed that it would. City Manager Taylor did not believe sending the grant out with the language it currently contained precluded doing exactly what was being suggested. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the grant would not provide any funding. She felt the City had a wealth of experts and sometimes did not listen to them. She recalled a charette in the Atrium Building about economic development, the results of which she averred were ignored. Mr. Poling acknowledged that the grant was neither for cash nor was it to match local funding. He underscored that any money it would cost would be due to the time the local team spent bringing the EPA team "up to speed." Regarding the groups Ms. Bettman listed, he stressed that the memorandum clearly indicated that the groups listed were as an example. He averred that the Mayor with her ability to bring diverse groups of people together would be able to bring together a very balanced group of people to evaluate and follow up on the recommendations. Mr. Yeiter said the local partnership team was what would normally be called a technical advisory committee and was intended to provide someone other than staff for the EPA team to speak with. He stressed that it was not intended to be the sole public outreach. Mr. Kelly asked if it would be possible to change the language on the document so that it spoke about reinforcing local growth management policies and to change the list for the local partnership team. He suggested, regarding the latter, that it say a local partnership would be formed at a later date and list some options for groups that could possibly participate in it. Mr. Yeiter stated that Planning Division Director Susan Muir was trying to contact the grant writer to see if it would be possible to change the language at this point. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to have staff edit the application in Section 4 wherein it questioned the recently adopted Growth Management Policies viability and change it to a state- ment reinforcing those 19 policies and that the partnership team could in- clude those entities but that the final team would be established by the Mayor. Ms. Bettman averred that the grant was competitive and should it have lukewarm council support it might not go anywhere once it arrived in Washington, DC. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 8 Work Session The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward the third Transpor- tation Growth Management Grant for approximately $50,000. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the two grants that were not before the council, which he felt fulfilled the council's charge to do more individualized planning for neighborhoods. Regarding the grant before the council, he thought because the grant was ahead of the council's policy discussion on mixed-use it felt like "half a grant." He asked that the discussion on the last item be allowed to influence the writing of the grant. He asked staffto consider what changes or additions to the City's land use code and other laws would better accomplish the City's growth management policies. Mr. Yeiter stated that this was staff's intent. Mr. Pap6 asked if this item could be referred back to the CCIGR for reworking. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the item and send it to the CCIGR. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy asked the council to inform the CCIGR by finishing its conversation on the item. Ms. Bettman asked how many people around the table knew what good development was and how many people could define it. She asked how many people could define mixed-use. She speculated that when talking about good development her definition would differ from Mr. Poling's. She thought to move forward with a "definitive" effort to recommend alterations to the Land Use Code and to remove barriers and to facilitate good development when that was undefined was "troublesome." She averred the council was "back to tweaking the code" for the entire city when site-specific planning was really what was needed. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Yeiter explained that the first two TGM grants were due on May 23 and for the third, the department needed to submit a letter of intent by June 15 it would reserve the City's right to apply. Mr. Poling stated that this grant would help the City look at what it was "dealing with" and make recommendations. He stressed that it did not seek to remove any barriers, but rather would be a review of mixed-use development and land use codes and other local development standards and then recommend changes that would better facilitate good development whatever that might be. He underscored that the grant did not require the City to change anything. He speculated that one result from such a grant might be a recommendation that the City should do more site-specific planning. He said it was an opportunity to get assistance and technical advice from people who had been dealing with these types of development. Mr. Kelly asked what had happened with the "Density Done Right" project undertaken by the Planning Commission several years earlier. Mr. Yeiter replied that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission had not been able to produce a product. He said the Chambers Reconsidered Study would take this idea further. He added that this was part of the reason grants such as these were sought. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly said he hoped staff would speak to the Land Use Code and other laws and policies in the grant application. He thought the code could be area specific in many ways and already was given the different zones and overlay zones. Mr. Kelly asked for an analysis of design standards in light of Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Bettman related that she had looked at the EPA Web site and had found that there were no mixed-use policies from the City of Eugene. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff look at the minutes and listen to the tape of this meeting and inculcate what Mr. Yeiter had said into the intent of the application. She asserted that the thrust of the Planning and Development Department at this point was to remove obstacles to mixed-use development from the code. She felt nodal development created a dense center with lesser densities as one moved farther from the center and that mixed-use meant the entire area of a space was open for mixed-use. Mr. Yeiter explained that this was not the definition the City was using for the mixed-use center program, but rather the definitions of nodal development were still being used. Mr. Pap6 commented that the council had been hung up on two words: 'removing obstacles.' He thought the council should look at how to improve the code to better align with growth management policies or some other way of calling it. City Manager Taylor agreed that how things were said was very important. Mr. Yeiter added that the objectives were the same. City Manager Taylor said he was anxious to work with the council to find the way to express its direction in a positive voice rather than in a way that sounded like there was skepticism regarding the policies that were already in place. Mr. Pap6 remarked that he welcomed people who knew nothing about Eugene and were not prejudiced by what was here so that ideas could come out that had not been thought of before. He did not think the council and staff had all the ideas. The meeting adjourned at 1:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT H MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall May 23, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer So, lomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pape, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy announced that young Mr. Piercy completed a seismic study of the Eugene City Hall for his Master's Program. Mayor Piercy reported that the Awbrey Park opening in Santa Clara was well-attended and thanked the Parks and Open Space Division, which played a major role in this project. She said that Public Works Day was also a wonderful event and the employees of the Public Works Department deserved many thanks. Ms. Solomon reported that the Apple Orchard Affordable Housing Grand Opening was impressive and congratulations were in order to service providers who can build such units. Ms. Solomon said the Echo Hollow Pool Grand Re-Opening was quite impressive and would prove to be a prudent investment for Ward 6. Ms. Solomon shared that she provided testimony before the Board of County Commissioners at a recent public hearing regarding the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and requested that the County restore the City/County Road Fund Partnership, currently not included in the CIP. Mr. Pryor said the agenda for the most recent Human Services Commission meeting was devoted to the budget -- the need was great and funding was scarce. Mr. Pryor reported that the Community Health Center staff continued to struggle to ensure that the federal grant funding will work to the best advantage. He also noted that Lane Metro Partnership was in the process of finalizing its budget and plans to review the inner workings of the organization as part of this process. Mr. Pryor said that long-term planning was discussed at the last McKenzie Watershed Council meeting. Ms. Ortiz announced that the Bethel Celebration would be held on June 4 from noon to 6 p.m. at Petersen Barn. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Ortiz reported that Centro LatinoAmericano would hold a fundraiser on June 3, and volunteers were needed to assist at the event. Ms. Ortiz noted the recent Eugene Police Department's (EPD) Commendation Event, saying it was a well-deserved recognition of the exemplary services provided by EPD officers. Ms. Ortiz stated that she planned to travel to Puerto Rico the week of May 30 and while there would obtain information regarding the works of the National Organization of Elected Latino Leaders. She said this information will be provided to the council at a later date. Ms. Ortiz shared that she recently met with Lauren Chouinard (lead staff for the Council Conversation on Race) and Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director Angel Jones and accepted, conceptually, on behalf of the City Council, Mr. Chouinard's work plan for the Council Conversation on Race. She stated she also discussed homeless issues with Ms. Jones. Mr. Pap6 said the Awbrey Park opening was the highest-attended neighborhood park opening he had ever attended. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that the Apple Orchard Low-Income Housing Project was indeed impressive and a wonderful addition to the community. Mr. Pap6 reported that American and City Magazine included an article in its latest edition that stated that as of January 1, 2002, the Tacoma-Pierce County, Washington Health Department requires perspective employees to sign an agreement to be non-smokers both on and off the j ob as a condition of employment. Mr. Kelly announced that the Human Rights Commission's Gender Identity Work Group unanimously passed draft code language that would add gender identity to the protections within the Human Rights Code and forwarded the document to the Human Rights Commission for its review. A public hearing on this issue would be held on Tuesday, June 21, at 7 p.m. Mr. Kelly said in regard to the Region 2050 long-range planning process, The Register Guard has published an insert entitled Design Your Future, which discusses possibilities for the region over the next 45 years and includes a questionnaire for readers. Ms. Taylor voiced concern regarding the costs for alley improvements assessed to the Eugene Garden Club. She pointed out that the club was not considered a business and should be in a different assessment category. Ms. Taylor asked staff to advise who maintained alleys that were not currently being repaved. Ms. Taylor shared that as she traveled around Eugene, she observes the City was not saving land for open space and parks for the future. Mr. Poling clarified that he was not a member of the Lane Metro Partnership in an official capacity; rather, he served on the Lane Workforce Partnership. Mr. Poling noted that the Harlow Neighborhood Association was recruiting for officers. Interested parties should contact Beth Bridges of the Planning and Development Department. The Executive Committee would hold its next meeting in September. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Poling believed the motoring public deserved gratitude for its patience regarding the I-105 Project. He reported that construction crews were moving rapidly to complete the project. In conclusion, Mr. Poling requested that staff submit a memo regarding the status of the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project. City Manager Dennis Taylor expressed thanks to the media for the outstanding coverage it had provided regarding the I- 105 project. B. WORK SESSION Standards for Smoking Areas Ms. Osborn summarized the Agenda Item Summary (ALS) and explained that staff was requesting direction from the City Council on whether to refine the Outdoor Smoking Area Standards that were currently embedded in the Administrative Rules. She said the rule was not as clear as it could be, and shared that a recent Hearing Official ruling, while upholding the City's enforcement action, noted that although the 25/75 standard was objective, the reference to the provision of a free flow of air was not particularly objective. Ms. Osborn stated that staff's preference was to adopt standards to be incorporated into the City Code that would provide for greater transparency. She distributed a staff information sheet entitled Several Key Questions and reviewed accordingly: (1) Designated outdoor smoking areas -yes or no? (2) If allowed, where can they be located? (3) What standards make sense? (4) If new standards, they do not apply or they do apply to existing outdoor smoking areas (approximately 40 establishments)? Ms. Osborn remarked that a 25-percent opening does not appear as "open" as was originally intended and explained that if the council requests a 50-percent opening, structural changes would need to be made to many of the existing outdoor smoking areas. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Taylor noted that the primary reason the council adopted the standards under discussion was to protect the health of employees. It was her preference that there be no outdoor smoking areas, and that the City should request establishments to phase out these areas. Ms. Taylor suggested that if these areas were allowed to continue, they should not have walls. Ms. Taylor then turned to the complaint process and asked why the complaints pertaining to smoking areas must be submitted in writing. Ms. Osborn replied that staff required written complaints for all zoning and nuisance complaints (the outdoor smoking areas were treated as such complaints). She went on to say that the department received approximately 400 zoning and nuisance complaints per year, and due to the high workload and the need for adequate information, written complaints were requested. Ms. Osborn added, however, that if there was a threat of an immediate health hazard, an oral or anonymous complaint would be accepted. She said the City does accept confidential complaints and can conceal the identity of complainants. Ms. Taylor pointed out that some people may telephone the City with complaints but do not want MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 3 Work Session to write their concerns, especially if they are an employee of an establishment that allows outdoor smoking. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for an excellent agenda report. He echoed Ms. Taylor's comment that the ordinance was enacted to protect the health of employees who do not have the same free choice as patrons. Mr. Kelly noted that the ordinance was also enacted to allow smokers who patronize taverns to smoke as long as they do not harm the health of employees. He stated that he could support an ordinance that would allow outdoor smoking areas in food and beverage establishments only. In terms of standards, Mr. Kelly referred to the model adopted in Upper Arlington, Ohio as a partial solution to this issue but cautioned there may be potential "wiggle room" around the wall specifications. Mr. Kelly referred to iron railings and latticework and suggested that such borders may be acceptable if they would they not hinder air circulation. He further suggested that the new standards be retroactive with a "phasing in" period so that establishments that have made a concerted effort to build a true outdoor area would not be adversely affected in a major way. Ms. Ortiz agreed with the points expressed by Mr. Kelly and added that establishments that sell cigarettes should be able to offer outdoor smoking areas. Additionally, she stated her preference for either a roof or walls, but not both, as ventilation was critical. Mr. Pryor spoke of the collision of individual rights and community rights. He said if the goal was to protect employees, the council should move forward in that vein. Mr. Pryor opined that businesses that until now complied with the ordinance in good faith should not be penalized if new standards were adopted. He then referred to ventilation systems and questioned if the issue was (1) an open area, or, (2) no smoke in the air. Mr. Pryor pointed out that if the air does not move, second-hand smoke would be present. He cautioned the council that if the City Manager was directed to prepare an ordinance, air circulation/quality should be considered. Mr. Pap6 concurred that the ordinance was indeed passed to protect employees; however, he pointed to the fact there was no State law at the time the ordinance was adopted and maintained that protection of smokers was also a factor. He questioned if there was a concern with the current ordinance. Ms. Osborn referred to the Heatings Official ruling, noted earlier, which stated that the Administrative Rule, as currently written, was not sufficiently objective and therefore made enforcement difficult. She added that the City has been giving conflicting messages to businesses as to the type of construction that would be allowed and that these businesses want clarification and assurance that the City would not take a different enforcement path in the future. Ms. Osborn then spoke of public health advocates who believe that the 25-percent standard does not provide adequate ventilation and a safe atmosphere. She said that complaints have been lodged periodically around this issue, especially in the winter season when violations of the order occur more frequently. Ms. Osborn read language from the Administrative Rule which stated in part "...provide no more than 75-percent closed area and provide for the free-flow o fair..." ." and noted that the City does not so define. In conclusion, she referred to the information in the AIS which states there were no agreed-upon standards for safe levels of tobacco smoke exposure. Mr. Pap6 stated that the City Council should move forward on this issue and limit the language to food and beverage establishments only. Additionally, he suggested that those establishments that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 4 Work Session have added smoking areas within the past five years should not be required to comply with the new standards. Ms. Bettman spoke of the original intent to protect employees from second hand smoke and to accommodate businesses and patrons to smoke "out of the rain." She noted that unfortunately, however, most of the constructed smoking areas are enclosed and employees are in the same predicament as before the Administrative Rule was adopted. Ms. Bettman suggested that the standards be tightened to protect the workers and then referred to the Upper Arlington, Ohio model as a good example. She added that if 75 percent of the smoking area was open to the air and a minimal enclosure was provided to protect people from the rain, such construction would suffice. She questioned if establishments other than food and beverage establishments in other municipalities have outdoor smoking areas. Ms. Osbom stated she was not aware of any such accommodations in other cities. Ms. Bettman reiterated that a "phase back" to less enclosure should be the intent to protect the workers. She further suggested a different approach to resolve this issue: make the smoking areas non-service areas and off-limits to employees so smokers can exercise their rights and employees would not be exposed. Ms. Solomon questioned the idea of allowing an outdoor smoking area in food and beverage establishments only. She suggested that if the City was going to allow such areas in food and beverage establishments, it should also extend the same accommodation to "adults only" establishments such as bingo parlors. Ms. Solomon stated she favored outdoor smoking areas and if standards were refined, those establishments that have already built such areas should not be affected by the policy change. She concurred with Ms. Bettman's suggestion that an outdoor smoking area that does not provide services could be a pragmatic approach to this issue. Mr. Poling pointed out that a "no service" smoking area would still need to be monitored by employees. He said he favored designated smoking areas and that "adults only" establishments should be "piggy-backed" into the standards. With regard to minimum openings, Mr. Poling suggested walls and roofs may not resolve the issue and that some type of air flow should be considered. He concluded that the new standards should not apply to those establishments that complied with the original Administrative Rule and perhaps voluntary compliance with the new standards could be encouraged for those individuals. Mr. Kelly referred to air quality and reiterated there was a lack of accepted standards from the air quality profession. He speculated that if the air quality issue was fully researched, the council would discover there should be no outdoor smoking areas as there was no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Mr. Kelly then spoke to his concern that some establishments have not operated in good faith and essentially provided an indoor smoking area for their patrons. He repeated his suggestion that those establishments that complied in good faith should not be penalized. Ms. Ortiz suggested that establishments that have already built outdoor smoking structures should be allowed to maintain such areas as originally constructed; however, she suggested that if any remodeling occurred the new standards would take effect, i.e., a non-conforming piece until a building permit was sought. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor suggested that those establishments that have built areas that do not fully comply with the current Administrative Rule should be ordered to comply retroactively with any new adopted standards. Mr. Poling conceded that his suggestion to consider an air ventilation system would not make the air completely safe; however, he pointed out that such a system would make the air move. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance on standards for outdoor smoking areas and to schedule a public hearing on the ordinance before October 1, 2005. Mr. Pap6 questioned if, with separation and new technology, the air would be cleaner inside rather than in an outdoor smoking area. He asked staff to examine if such a situation would be plausible. The motion passed unanimously. C. Discussion Concerning Metro Plan Amendment for Public Safety Special District City Manager Taylor explained that Lane County was requesting a text amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) that would allow the formation of a county service district to address public safety activities. Kurt Yeiter of the Planning and Development Department made the following correction to the AIS. He said it stated that on May 10, the Lane Board of County Commissioners adopted the ordinance as noted in Exhibit A. However, he explained, the commissioners amended the language to the ordinance as follows: The district shall pay for effects of full compression loss to taxing districts, not withstanding the loss as the result of urban renewal or enterprise zones. The ordinance would not be effective until a fifth reading occurs, currently scheduled for June 1. Mr. Yeiter then announced that the City of Springfield considered the amendment on May 16, and adopted the ordinance and the language that referred to compensation for the compression. Mr. Yeiter explained that in accordance with the Metro Plan, if an exact amendment was not adopted by all three jurisdictions, it would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for conflict resolution and then referred back to the jurisdictions for review and possible action. He further explained that if the City denied, modified, or postponed action, further discussion would ensue to debate appropriate language. In conclusion, Mr. Yeiter noted that the City Manager's recommendation was to approve the amendment. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded to the following questions posed by members of the council: · The language for the State Statute that required a resolution of approval from the City of Eugene for the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission to approve the district formation was noted in OR199.462-Sub 2. The language in Sub A states that in order to include property within a city requires an action by the City Council approving that inclusion in the boundary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 6 Work Session · The rule applied to any district formation in a Lane County boundary commission jurisdiction. OR Chapter 199 specifically dealt with boundary commission jurisdictions. · If the boundary commission was disbanded, the process reverts back to the general provisions related to boundary changes as noted in OR Chapter 198, which contains a comparable provision that required City Council approval in order to include land in a district formation that was part of the State. · It was correct that the Metro Plan amendment was only applicable to the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area; the County has the ability to create a special district throughout the balance of the county without the participation of the Eugene/Springfield jurisdictions. With the agreement of other city councils, the County can create a district that does not include the City of Eugene. · The County can be required to reimburse the City for compression for levies currently in effect, in addition to future levies if such language was included in an intergovermnental agreement. · A jurisdiction can amend or with&aw from an intergovernmental agreement if such language was included in the terms of such agreement. (Staff would recommend such language in an intergovernmental agreement and further state it could not be amended or terminated without the approval of all the parties to the agreement.) · A permanent tax rate to generate more revenue to compensate for compression would result in more compression. · The other forms of district boards allowed other than the Board of County Commissioners depended on the nature of the special district. If it was a county service district, the board would be the Board of County Commissioners; other types of districts would have an independent elected board. · Federal and State Public Safety grants would be handled as follows: negotiations would ensue with county partners to apply for non-competitive, pass-through grants and the priorities were jointly established prior to submission. Separate applications were not filed by the City of Eugene and the joint grants were submitted through the county rather than a district. The State could change the rules, however. Eugene was no more likely to apply or not apply for pass-through grants if the district were in place. Other competitive grant applications would be submitted as warranted and would compete against other applicants, including the county, depending on the program. As programs were distinct, competition was rare. · The proposed language in the amendment would most likely not preempt the City's ability to opt in or out of any proposed district and the document can be clarified to state it definitely would not. · The words "preventive" and "reactive" public safety services include fire and emergency medical services (EMS), but not library services. This amendment could include fire and EMS but not include library services. (Mr. Yeiter pointed out that the Eugene Planning Commission recommended language changes to clarify that if police-related services were intended by this motion, fire and EMS should be excluded.) Mayor Piercy commented that she and the City Council fully understood the public safety challenges throughout Lane County and acknowledged the effort being made to try to ad&ess these challenges. She added that all municipalities and Lane County "own" this critical issue together. Mr. Kelly strongly concurred with the Mayor's comments and stated, for example, that the jail, alcohol and drug treatment programs, youth programs, and the District Attorney's Office have critical needs at this time. He stated, however, that a special district changed the fundamental MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 7 Work Session structure of local government. Mr. Kelly said that minimizing the role of the City to provide these general purpose services was not prudent. Mr. Kelly went on to say that if there was a mechanism that would provide prevention and reactive services that the County wanted to put forth through a serial levy, income tax measure, or sales tax measure, he was willing to campaign for these requests. However, he stressed that he could not approve a fundamental change mechanism. He questioned if the City Council was prepared to say to voters that such an action was the answer to the public safety challenges. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly pondered how it would appear to voters if the elected officials were unclear what services would be offered to the public as they were being taxed permanently each year. Ms. Bettman stated she favored funding public safety; however, she was not in favor of the recommendation before the council. She said that the document under review was a discrete amendment change, would not be put forth to the voters, and would open the door to a fundamental change as to how services were provided between the County and the municipalities. Ms. Bettman opined that if the Metro Plan amendment moved forward, the County would have the next 20 years to pursue bills that preempted the City's local authority to determine how local services would be provided. She cautioned that once such a district was created, the City would not be privy to how funding was spent. She pointed out that Lane County and the City of Springfield had an opportunity to make a good faith effort to include the language regarding compression in the amendment as they cast their votes and did not do so. Ms. Bettman stressed that the biggest impact of this amendment would be on the City of Eugene as it was the biggest revenue generator for the County, with a starting cost of $9 million. Mr. Pryor stated that the proposal was a step to keep the conversation going. He reasoned that the resolution would not create a special district; rather, it would allow the local governments to "keep the tool in the tool box." Mr. Pryor questioned the likelihood that the County would put forth a serial levy, sales tax, or other measures. He stressed he did not want to close down the options this early in the process. Mr. Pap6 stated that it may be timely for the council to look at a "shift" in program funding. He pointed to the constraints imposed by ballot measure 5, 47, and 50 and said he would prefer that the City broaden the manner in which services were financed. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Mr. Pryor's remarks that it would be prudent to "keep the tool in the tool box" and additionally to include fire and EMS services in the amendment language. He noted that the State statute requires a consensual "buy-in" by Eugene to be included in any special district. Mr. Klein elaborated that before a city can be included in a public safety district, its city council must pass a resolution of approval. He added that the district could move forward without the City of Eugene but to include property within Eugene, the council would need to pass an affirmative resolution. Mr. Klein concluded that the City can work with the City of Springfield and Lane County to tweak the language in the amendment to clarify any ambiguities. Mr. Pap6 said he favored special districts in this area. City Manager Taylor explained that the language was created to be as specific and narrow as possible so that the rest of the understandings that were created in 1987 with regard to who was the appropriate service provider would remain the same as in the current Metro Plan; in other words, the amendment would MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 8 Work Session provide a narrow exception for this particular county service district and would not signal a wider possibility of special districts except when jurisdictions came forward with specific proposals to amend the Metro Plan. In conclusion, Mr. Pap6 stressed that the council needed to form a better partnership with the County and move forward in a positive manner. Mr. Poling concurred with the comments made by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pap6, and pointed out that the final decision about the matter rested with the voters of Lane County. He said the course of action decided by Lane County to amend the Metro Plan was undertaken because that document was one of the biggest challenges. Mr. Poling stated he favored moving forward with the amendment to allow the conversations to continue. He then pointed out that the only time a serial levy was passed in Lane County was in 1986 and that countrywide services have since continued to erode. Mr. Poling noted that 60 percent of the workload created for the District's Attorney's Office was the result of actions taken by residents of the Eugene/Springfield areas. Mr. Poling referred to Ms. Bettman's comment that the loss to Eugene was $9 million and asked if an actual cost to the taxpayers was awaiting the decisions of the cities on this issue. City Manager Taylor replied that was the County strategy. Additionally, he shared that a Metro Plan Task Force has been reviewing what services would ensue; however, he added that a dialogue with the cities was necessary. He believed it would be preferable to ascertain in advance what would be the array of services and voiced his hope that there would be clarity around this issue prior to the adoption of the text amendment. In conclusion, Mr. Poling stated he appreciated the language that was added by the County to address the compression issue. Ms. Solomon voiced her support for the amendment and said the County was fully aware of the obstacles it would face and was willing to do the work to make this process a successful endeavor. She agreed with the comment made by Mr. Poling that it was up to the voters to decide and opined the plan was a great opportunity for the community. Finally, she reminded the council that the Planning Commission agreed to continue the discussion. Ms. Taylor concurred that public safety issues are dire; however, she opined that the amendment was not the solution. She pointed out that passage of the amendment would go beyond "conversations" as money and staff time would be involved in discussions and planning. Ms. Taylor pointed to the waste of taxpayers' money that occurred due to the discussions around the Santa Clara land swap deal. She said that (1) passage of this amendment avoided looking at other solutions; (2) an increase in property taxes was problematic as such taxes are already too high; and (3) other sources of revenue must be pursued. Mayor Piercy reiterated that she hoped the discussions could continue. She questioned why the "notwithstanding" language in the amendment points took the City of Eugene out of the process but does not take it out of the decision-making. Mr. Klein replied that the purpose of the language was to remove the Metro Plan from being a consideration in the formation of a public safety district. As it now stands, he continued, the Metro Plan dictated that a special district cannot be formed and "notwithstanding" clarifies that if the districts were public safety-related, the Metro Plan was no longer an impediment to that formation. Mr. Klein offered to propose that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 9 Work Session the Metro Plan amendment language be changed to clarify that even if the State statute was repealed, the City of Eugene could not be taken out of the process. City Manager Taylor clarified that the public safety district under discussion was countywide as a county service district so it would not be a single-purpose special district. He recommended that the language (1) allow for the formation of a district without the need to further amend the Metro Plan; (2) ensure the council could prevent the formation of such a district if the district included territory within the city limits and (3) ensure that the County cannot create a district until after the City and the County enter into an agreement that guarantees the County would hold the City harmless from any compression losses resulting from the district. Mayor Piercy stated she was reluctant to support the amendment without additional discussion with all parties involved. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the Springfield City Council passed the amendment by only a 3:2 vote. He reiterated that the need was there; however, he opined voters would be less likely to pass a special district due to its permanent nature, whereas a serial levy that expires or an income tax that can be overturned may prove to be more acceptabie. Mr. Kelly put forth an alternative to the proposal, which was that the City enter into a partnership with the County to research a mechanism that does not change the fundamental structure of government. He opined that a conversation that only focuses on a special district would be counterproductive. Finally, Mr. Kelly pointed out that passage of the amendment cuts off the County as it limits it exclusively to a "special district'? path. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance denying the Metro Plan amendment and to comprehensively explore with Springfield and Lane County mutually acceptable revenue-generating initiatives for restoring statutorily mandated public safety services. Ms. Bettman stated that if the amendment was adopted, it was the end of the discussion as the amendment was specific in nature and provides the County the ability to determine what services would prevail. She stressed that the amendment cannot be tweaked once it was passed. Ms. Bettman said that if one of the options the council wishes to pursue was to tweak an amendment of the Metro Plan to allow a specific service district, the motion she put forth allowed for such an action. However, she questioned if agreed upon language would in fact be included in the Metro Plan at the end of the process. Ms. Bettman reasoned that the Planning Commission did pass the amendment; however, it forwarded recommended language to the County that was not incorporated into the document that was now before the council. Further, she said the issue of compression was not considered by the County. Ms. Bettman pointed out that in the recent past, the Eugene City Council twice voted down a special district. She reiterated that the County focused the process to a Metro Plan amendment for the metropolitan area initially as it was the lucrative revenue generator. She further pointed out that other cities could "opt out" of such a process and the County would continue to be statutorily mandated to provide services to those cities, leaving the City with the burden of the special district. The cities of Eugene and Springfield would be subsidizing the level of services provided to such areas. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman opined that the City of Eugene would cede its taxing authority to the County if the amendment was passed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Piercy voiced her support for the motion; however, she voiced her concern regarding the restoration of the statutorily mandated public safety services as it was too limiting. She stated that prevention and intervention services were critical and should be included. Ms. Bettman, with agreement by Ms. Taylor, moved to include a friendly amendment to the motion to include "and prevention and intervention public safety services." Ms. Solomon pointed out that the original motion before this body was not the end of the discussion as the City has adequate leverage to include clarifications into an intergovernmental agreement. She opined that discussions would be fruitful and questioned what other option were available. Ms. Solomon encouraged the council to allow the County to prevail. Mr. Pryor reiterated that the proposal before the council would not create a special district and to shut down the process at this point would just continue the fruitless conversations that have ensued for years. He voiced serious doubt that the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and Lane County would be able to come together to resolve the critical issues via another path. He urged the council to allow the amendment to pass, followed by a conversation regarding special districts with all the parties involved. Mr. Kelly countered that the amendment does allow a special district. He also shared that the benefits of a special district have not been revealed, nor "why" it would succeed where other options have not. Mr. Kelly noted that such a district would cost taxpayers $250.00 per year based on a median-priced house and the County's own polling suggest the community would not accept such an increase in taxes. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly stated he would support Ms. Bettman's motion as it moves to comprehensively explore other options with the area partners that would be successful. Ms. Ortiz stated she supported Ms. Bettman's motion as it was critical to have a dialogue with all partners "at the table" to reach a viable agreement. She stressed that she supported public safety programs and would campaign and support a sound program. In conclusion, Ms. Ortiz noted she was included in the past conversations on this matter. Ms. Bettman pointed to the perennial lack of support Lane County demonstrated with regard to bond measures and levies, in contrast to the City of Eugene, which can pass bond measures and levies as its residents rallied around the issues. She opined that divided support would not result in a successful process. Ms. Bettman spoke to the State statute and said it gave the council veto power but not the ability to design a solution that works for the taxpayers of Eugene. Ms. Bettman clarified that the revenues generated from Eugene taxpayers was $9,240,000 at the $1 rate and $18 million at the $2 rate; whereas, the County was proposing to double its current public safety budget. Mr. Pap6 voiced his disagreement with Ms. Bettman's assessment that if the amendment was passed the discussion was over. He also reiterated that the County can go forward with a special district without the City of Eugene's participation. Mr. Pap6 then suggested that the language in MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 11 Work Session the proposed amendment needed to be broadened to include the option of researching special districts for whatever the service may be. Mayor Piercy commented that her support of the motion put forth by Ms. Bettman did not preclude a Metro Plan amendment that was more acceptable for the constituents of Eugene. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Mr. Pap~ Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor Pierce cast a vote in favor of the motion and it was passed in a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Klein explained that an ordinance that would deny the Metro Plan amendment would be forwarded to the council, as required by code. Additionally, he reminded the Mayor and the City Council that following adoption of the ordinance, a disagreement between the cities of Eugene, and Springfield, and Lane County would exist and the amendment would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), which would, in turn, craft recommendations for review and possible approval by the governing bodies. Mayor Piercy noted that additional conversations between the parties can ensue as well. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 12 Work Session