Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/23/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall May 23, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pap~, 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 Parmership, 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. Pap~ 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. Pap~ 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 job 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 Parmership. 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 1-105 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 1-105 project. B. WORK SESSION Standards for Smoking Areas Ms. Osbom 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. Pap~ 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 Hearings 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. Papd 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 %ut 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 AlS. 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 Jhll 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 intergovernmental agreement. · A jurisdiction can amend or withdraw 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 address 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 and the County 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. Pap~ stated that it may be timely for the council to look at a %hift" 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. Pap~ 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 %uy-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. Pap~ 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. Papd 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. Pap~, 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 %onversations" 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 acceptable. 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. Pap~ 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. Pap~ 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 mm, 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 doyce Ogden) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 12 Work Session