Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/14/03 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall July 14, 2003 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. Council President Gary Pap~ called the meeting to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Councilor Pap~ reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Sarah Mason, PO Box 195, Dexter, said that, in a city known for being compassionate and progressive, she found it unconscionable to abandon so many animals to an uncertain end. She urged the council to reconsider funding the Lane County Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA) cattery. Deanna Diehl, 1343 Top Street, provided a picture of a cat to the council. She commented, regarding public policy and LCARA, that she was concerned about the message the council was sending to the city's residents regarding stray and abandoned cats. She related the story of how she and her husband had rescued an abandoned kitten. She said that a domestic animal that had been abandoned needed a place to go. She noted that LCARA provided presentations in public schools and wondered what the agency would now say to children in regard to abandoned or stray cats. She strongly encouraged councilors to make a motion to increase the funding for LCARA so that it could continue to operate its cattery and, possibly, open the expansion that had been built for that purpose. She added that the expansion included 40 new stainless steel cages for cats. Rita Castillo, 6825 F Street, Springfield, stated her belief that if the City funded the cattery, the County would follow suit. She stressed that having a large population of strays increased the danger to public health and safety. She noted that a reduction of leptospirosis had been recorded in the area, due to the former level of cat control. She predicted that cases of leptospirosis, as well as other diseases carried by cats, would increase due to the reduction in services for feral cats. She provided the council with a handout entitled Diseases SpreadFrom Cat to Man. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 1 Regular Meeting Randi Golub, 88530 Greenhill Road, presented a story about a couple that had taken in a stray cat that had then posed a threat to the safety of their children. She explained that continued funding of the cattery program at LCARA would help prevent situations like the aforementioned one in which citizens were put at risk as well as help save the lives of the community's homeless animals. She asked the members of the audience who were present in support of the cattery program to stand. Approximately 35 people rose to their feet. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, related that the chamber was looking forward to the coming work session on the Stormwater Fund. He reported that the chamber opposed an increase in the stormwater user fees for fiscal year 2005. He expressed hope that the council would give direction to staff to scale the program back or to provide a model of how a scaled back program would look and still be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and other regulations. Mr. Connolly also spoke to the proposed fee increase to provide funding for the purchase of stream corridors. He was happy that the City Manager had delayed implementation of the fees until the council could review them in context with the overall Stormwater Program. He felt it was unfortunate that the council had initiated the fee increase without a public hearing, as the public had no opportunity to express whether the acquisition of stream corridors had risen to such a high level priority as opposed to funding other capital infrastructure or other needs in the community. He noted that the first opportunity for public input on this issue had been provided in June 2003, and that all testimony received had been in opposition to the fee increase, including compelling testimony from the 4J School District and testimony that alleged the land that was being purchased was over-priced. He related that the chamber's point of view was that neither the fee increase nor the purchase of stream corridors was necessary, but should the council strongly feel that the stream corridors should be purchased, it should look within the existing $12 million stormwater budget to do so. Jim Welsh, 950 Killian Lane, Elmira, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Association of Realtors. He stated that the realtors were initiating another process to stop the transportation maintenance fee and to begin a discussion on an alternative approach to this funding. He related that the realtors wished to suggest to the council that it repeal this fee, as had recently happened in the City of Springfield. He felt that this would better address the needs of citizens. He took issue with the timing of the consideration of the fee, noting that it had happened during the holiday season in December when the citizens of the community were otherwise engaged and unable to provide input. He said that the association would begin an initiation process for the repeal of the fee, but added that a repeal from the council would be more expeditious and less costly. Continuing, Mr. Welsh stated that the Eugene Association of Realtors agreed with the chamber on the stormwater increase. He reported that the association felt that the purchase of stream corridors was not necessary for stormwater management. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 2 Regular Meeting Dave Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Drive, also from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that the chamber had filed an initiative petition to place before the voters the transportation systems maintenance fee. He reported that the decision to pursue the initiative process was due to the chamber's belief that there was a better solution to address local street maintenance funding and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for these solutions to "surface" until the fee was "off the table." He raised several concerns in regard to the fee, alleging that the repeal of this fee in Springfield created an "unlevel playing field" for Eugene businesses and that there were no specific requirements that the transportation maintenance fee would be spent exclusively to address the backlog in street maintenance issues. He added that the fee methodology placed a burden on certain categories of businesses and organizations, including the public school system. He predicted that this fee would cost the 4J School District $50,000 annually. He assured the council that the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce had the organization and the resources to place the initiative on the ballot in May 2004, and that once the measure qualified for the ballot, the chamber had complete confidence that the fee would be repealed. He noted that a similar repeal voted on in Salem in May 2003, had passed with 80 percent of the vote. He urged the City Council to "follow the lead of the Springfield City Council" and voluntarily repeal the transportation systems maintenance fee, stating that this would accelerate the time frame to get to a real solution to local street maintenance funding and to "open the door" for organizations like the chamber and the Lane County Commissioners to work toward an acceptable solution to fund street maintenance challenges. Mary Blackburn, 3914 Shasta View, related that when she had moved to the community 20 years previously, she and her husband had been shocked to discover that there was no cattery. She said that the facility had since been built and that now was the time to fund it. She felt that the City had not stepped forward and "done the right thing," unfairly placing the burden of stray and abandoned cats on a non-profit agency. She advocated for the institution of aggressive dog licensing and the creation of a protective cat ordinance to offset costs. Melanie Foster, 2307 Churchill Street, reported that the Churchill neighborhood fully supported the continuation of the cat shelter. She said she had been in contact with many local residents and business owners and that the citizens of this community were appalled there was a huge budget allocated for the promotion of the airport but when the Lane County Board of Commissioners made funding available to the cattery contingent on the City's match, the City had not risen to the occasion. She related that, at times, 50 cats and kittens were brought into the shelter per day. Diana Huntington, 87426 Halderson Road, Eugene, spoke on behalf of the Animal Welfare Network.of Lane County. She requested that adequate funding be provided for the LCARA cattery. She read aloud the list of 27 local groups that were members of the network and provided services, including fund-raising, for animal welfare within the community. Jauetta Overholser, 30300 Lorane Road, Cottage Grove, stated that she was president of the Cottage Grove Humane Society. She explained that, because of the law, Greenhill Humane MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 3 Regular Meeting Society was only allowed to take in cats that had been owned and that, due to the elimination of funding for the cattery at the LCARA facility, there was nowhere to take stray and abandoned cats. She commented that this had created a dilemma for her, as citizens expected her to be a resource for stray animals. She requested the funding to be restored to the cattery. Linda Overstake, PO Box 452, Noti, said that she had lived in Eugene her whole life and had recently observed an increase in feral cats in the downtown area. She noted that the number of animals abandoned in the area where she currently resided had dramatically increased as well. She requested those present in support of the cattery to stand again, noting that more people had arrived. The majority of the audience rose to their feet in indication of their support. Leanne Cook, PO Box 633, Pleasant Hill, spoke as a representative of the Ninth Life Rescue for Ferals. She stressed that without animal regulation, all of the work that the volunteer agencies perform would be in vain and that there would be a negative impact on the community due to the increase in the population of feral cats and the spread of disease. She related that her organization had received no donations for six months. She said that currently there was nowhere for the cats brought to her attention to be placed. She stated that the cattery had been supported for 23 years and that the trap and release program in which she participated provided tremendous benefit to the community. Diana Robertson, 871 River Road, Executive Director of Shelter Animal Resource Alliance, explained that she was representing the hundreds of people who supported the work of the alliance through donations and through adoption of the animals. She said that the closure of the LCARA cat shelter had caused a huge impact to the local small agencies, who were already spread too thin. She noted that the council had wanted to be fiscally responsible and stay within a budget, but opined that it was poor budgeting not to accommodate such a vital service to the community. She noted that her agency would be happy to refer the many people calling with unwanted cats to City Hall. She added that she was appreciative that the City did choose to restore funding for an animal control officer. Council President Pap~ noted that the public forum segment of the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council had reached the half-hour mark. Councilor Taylor moved, seconded by Councilor Solomon, to extend the Public Forum by nine minutes to accommodate three more speakers. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Virginia Jurasevich, 416 East 32nd Avenue, shared a story of rescuing an injured cat on the previous evening. She said that there had been nowhere to turn with the animal. She urged the council to support the cattery, stating that it made the community more livable. She commented that she had never attended a council meeting in thirty years of residence in Eugene, but this issue had brought her forward. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 4 Regular Meeting Debbie Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, spoke on the wetland inventory process recently initiated by Planning staff to comply with the Goal 5 process. She stated that the aerial photos that were being use in the initial stages of the process were five years old and, as such, were less than adequate. She related that two modes of assessment were being used, one of which was to use the outdated photographs and the other, should the property owner provide permission, was to walk the properties in question. She said that Neil BjOrklund, lead staff in the inventory process, had called the photos adequate but not ideal and had said that the consultants would verify in the field any conditions that had changed since the photos had been taken. Ms. Jeffries suggested that this was not entirely correct, as the property owner could choose to deny access or could possibly not receive an inquiry for access, in which case the consultants were "simply going to guess." She said that the budget for this process was not to exceed $72,000. She said that with this amount of money, new aerial photographs for the purpose of assessing the criteria would be a prudent investment. She felt that without new aerial photographs, staff would be flooded with objections from property owners and the process would become more costly. Ms. Jeffries reminded the council that the process had just begun because the City staff and the staff of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) assigned to the project in 2000 had failed to read the Oregon Administrative Rule 6.600(23) completely. She asked the council to direct staff to provide a report to the council on the budget of the FTE time devoted to this process each year until completion, the cost of up-to-date aerials, and whether staff believed $70,000 to be a sufficient amount. Majeska Seese-Green, 549 Van Buren Street, stated that she was president of the Whiteaker Neighborhood Association and co-chair of the Neighborhood Leaders Council. She thanked the council, on behalf of the two organizations, for putting more funding into the neighborhood association newsletter and postcard notification budget. Ms. Seese-Green said that she had been disappointed that this funding had been taken from the Neighborhood Matching Grants program and not from the City reserves, as had been done for the Permit and Information enter funding. She advocated for the revision of the Neighborhood Matching Grants program, should it be continued in the future, so that it supported the neighborhood associations and was integrated into the work of the neighborhood associations. She felt that, in that way, it would help to build the neighborhood associations. She asserted that, as it stood, the grant program undermined the neighborhood association because it did not seek to leverage one project to connect with another project and that the grant program competed with neighborhood associations for residents' energies. Council President Pap~ closed the Public Forum. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone who spoke at the Public Forum. She expressed hope that it would be possible to fund the cattery. She noted that someone had suggested licensing dogs, stating that this was already being done, and wondered if the creation of a cat licensing program MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 5 Regular Meeting would be an appropriate source for funding. She recommended having a higher fee for animals who were not neutered or spayed. Speaking to the transportation systems maintenance fee, Councilor Taylor reiterated her opposition to the fee. She supported its repeal, and suggested that the City collaborate with the County to maintain roads. Councilor Taylor expressed her support for the stream corridor acquisition, commenting that it was "one of the most important things" to do for the long-term good of the community. Councilor Solomon also thanked those present for their input. She stated, regarding the transportation systems maintenance fee, that she had served on the citizen committee that had provided the original recommendation to the members of the City Council. She emphasized that the committee had a very diverse membership and had carefully considered the matter for a year prior to making the recommendation. She shared her concern regarding the execution of the program. She said that she believed that the chamber would prevail in its petition drive and urged her fellow councilors to consider the impact of the outcome of such a ballot measure. Continuing, Councilor Solomon noted that the City of Springfield had repealed its fee, in part because of overtures the County had made to provide more help in street maintenance funding and that she had been informed that the County allegedly would make the same overtures to the City of Eugene provided there was not such a fee on the books to address local street maintenance. She likened that to blackmail. She opined that it was leap of faith to have confidence that the County would come to the table to have a discussion on such a collaboration. She stated that the chamber had expressed a willingness to facilitate the conversation between the County Commissioners and the City Council and, as such, this warranted a discussion at the council level. City Manager Dennis Taylor recommended that Councilor Solomon request a poll of her fellow councilors and that staff, pending a majority interest in revisiting the issue, would schedule a discussion for a work session some time in the near future. Councilor Kelly thanked the members of the public who came to speak. He reiterated that the citizen members of the Budget Committee, who were "not known as...flaming radicals," had spent more than a year working on this issue, sorting through a number of alternatives, and sought input from the chamber and other community members before recommending the transportation systems maintenance fee. He expressed dismay at the notion that other ideas and solutions were now cropping up. He questioned why these ideas had not been advanced when the committee and council were initially reviewing and working toward resolution of the issue. He noted that the Mayor had worked very hard with the County on this issue and had not made any progress. He wondered how this would "magically change" once the fee had been repealed, adding that one thing that would not change was the ever-growing backlog of road maintenance needs. He stressed that should the fee be repealed, there would be no plan "on the table" to MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting address this backlog. Speaking to Mr. Hauser's testimony, Mr. Kelly stated emphatically that the council had put very restrictive usage language in the adopting ordinance that specified a very narrow range of uses the funds could be used for. Councilor Bettman thanked those present for their testimony. She spoke to the concerns raised by "the lobbyist" from the real estate industry, stating that the stream corridors were the green infrastructure. She said that it was estimated that this green infrastructure would provide the community with a 20-to-30-percent reduction in stormwater costs over time. She opposed abandoning the project, as the installation and maintenance of "pipe and fill" water management facilities was a much more expensive approach. Regarding the transportation systems maintenance fee, Councilor Bettman reiterated her opposition to it. She said that the City received "tens of millions of dollars" from Lane County, the State, and the federal government and that this money was spent on operations and new projects. She felt that the way the money was allocated needed to be prioritized to provide more support for the maintenance of local street infrastructure. She expressed surprise that the representatives from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce had said that there was a better solution. She asked what the solution was. Councilor Bettman spoke to the concerns expressed by the supporters of the cattery, stating that the budget for animal regulation was $558,000 and came from the City's General Fund and that this amount was almost half of the amount allocated to human services in the recent budget process. Councilor Poling commented that he was willing to pay $3 per month to help support road maintenance. He felt that the problem businesses had about the fee was that it was based on the number of trips generated by a commercial entity and that this was difficult to ascertain in an equitable manner. He cited the examples of a small, fast food eatery with a drive-through window, which by virtue of its function generated much vehicle traffic, and a large company, which made a lot more money but generated fewer trips, stating that the fee would create an unfair burden on the smaller business. He also questioned whether the County would "step up to the plate" and help with road maintenance. He commented additionally that it could be prudent to provide the school systems an exemption to the fee as they were already burdened with budget woes. Councilor Meisner expressed support for a continued discussion on the transportation systems maintenance fee. He related that, prior to his departure on a trip, the Mayor had been adamant that he be present for such a discussion and had expressed concern that a premature repeal of the fee would leave the City without resources to address the backlog of street maintenance projects. He was skeptical that the County would help with the backlog, noting that though the City of Eugene accounted for more than a third of the population of the county, contained most of the assessed value of the county, collected the majority of the gas tax and, yet, received a "minuscule" amount of the County's road fund dollars. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 7 Regular Meeting Regarding LCARA, Councilor Meisner stressed that even though City residents pay County taxes, they were expected to pay separately and in addition for cattery services for the City of Eugene. He said that the City needed to renegotiate this and felt uncertain as to how to approach it. He noted that several people had suggested that the City should find funding solutions through licensing, and responded that the licensing program was a County program and not under the jurisdiction of the City. He related that the county commissioners had instigated the formation of an animal regulation task force more than a year ago and had yet to provide a report on this to the City. Councilor Papd expressed appreciation to Ms. Blackburn for delving into potential solutions to the funding issues for the cattery. He commented that the budget process had been "gut- wrenching" and many needed services had been cut out. He welcomed ideas on how programs could be re-funded, noting that the eight councilors and the eight citizen members of the Budget Committee had not been able to provide such funding given the current fiscal limitations. Councilor Pap6 requested staff to look into the possibility of taking new aerial photographs to aid in the Goal 5 inventory process. Councilor Pap6 stated, regarding the Neighborhood Matching Grant program, that due to budgetary constraints, there had been no alternative to the elimination of the program. Additionally, Councilor Pap~ supported a work session on the transportation systems management fee, but expressed his opposition to any repeal of it. He remarked that a lot of work had gone into the formulation of the fee. He opined that the allowance of some of the funding to go into operations had alienated some of the support for the fee. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 9, 2003, Work Session - June 9, 2003, City Council Meeting - June 11, 2003, Work Session - June 18, 2003, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Resolution 4765 Amending the Effective Date of Resolution No. 4748 Pertaining to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Regional Wastewater System Development Charge MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman stated that she had previously submitted corrections to the minutes. She pulled Item 2C. Councilor Taylor said that she had submitted corrections to the minutes of the work session held on June 18. Councilor Kelly, and several others, noted that they had not received the corrections and Councilor Taylor read the following correction into the record: · June 18 work session, page 5, third paragraph: "Ms. Taylor said that some citizens who sent letters to the City Council following the close of the public record were told the council could not receive them., ~*~ .... ~ ~ ~ ...... ~'~'~ ~ ......... ~'~;~ Councilor Kelly noted that he had submitted his corrections to the minutes to staff. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 2C passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman explained that Item 2C was requesting that the council amend the effective date of a resolution that would adopt the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's (MWMC) regional wastewater development charge. She reminded the council that it had taken this item up in January and had modified the methodology so that, instead of a five-year project list, it was based on a ten-year project list. This resulted in a slight increase in systems development charges (SDC) but also evened out the collection of SDCs. Councilor Bettman said she would oppose the motion because, as the City of Springfield was responsible for the delay, she felt the council should be reexamining its Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Springfield in regard to this issue rather than postponing the effective date of the resolution. She averred that the wording of the IGA allowed Springfield to stall the process, which had already been stalled "quite a bit." She stated that the SDCs were not being collected at this level and there was not enough being collected currently to offset the expense of the infrastructure for new growth. She asserted that many of the objections were coming from the Lane County Home Builders Association, that this association was well-represented on the MWMC, and that the home builders were very involved in this process. Councilor Bettman felt that this was a recurring problem with the SDCs; that people who had worked on the committees to develop solutions for the SDCs then returned after the process and expressed dissatisfaction with the methodology and with the result. She called it a "ploy" to stall implementation of fee increases. She urged the City Manager to review the wording of the IGA in order to assure that Springfield City Council was not dictating to the ratepayers of the City of Eugene what should be paid for wastewater services. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman clarified, at Councilor Papa's request, that she was not making a motion, but rather was encouraging her fellow councilors to vote down the delay of the increase in SDCs and then, should the resolution fail, determine a time to hold a work session for the discussion of the matter. Councilor Poling noted that he and Councilor Solomon had raised questions regarding the methodology behind and the legality of the 144 percent increase of the SDCs, adding that the council had passed it by a vote of 6:2. He related that shortly thereafter, the Springfield City Council pulled the item off of its agenda to address questions that had been raised. He said that a legal appeal had not been filed in time in reference to the action of the Eugene City Council, but that an appeal had been filed prior to the scheduled action in Springfield based on a court case in the City of Newberg in which the city had settled out of court and had reimbursed the home builders $400,000 in SDCs deemed to have been illegitimately collected utilizing the same methodology that was proposed by the MWMC. Councilor Poling disagreed with Councilor Bettman's assertion that the home builders association was well-represented on the MWMC, stating that he was on the board of the MWMC and that he had not observed this to be so. He said that the MWMC had decided that the commission should refer the SDC methodology back to a citizen committee to avoid any legal fallout. In order for this to go into effect, he added, both cities need to work together. He stressed that the delay did not mean that SDCs would not be collected, only that they would not be collected using the new methodology. Councilor Poling observed that, should councilors vote against the resolution, Springfield would be collecting at the old rate and Eugene would be collecting at the new, higher rate, thus creating a more desirable climate for development in Springfield. He urged the council to vote for the resolution. Councilor Kelly expressed concern that the structure that had been set up around the SDC procedure effectively provided one municipality veto power over another. He asked the City Attorney to comment on the two legal documents, and specifically, that should the resolution fail, whether the City of Eugene would be legally allowed to utilize the new methodology for collecting SDCs given the legal weight of the IGA between the two cities. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the reason the City of Eugene had not collected the increase in the SDCs thus far was because of the IGA. He likened it to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan in that the council could pass an amendment to it, but unless all of the jurisdictions that were party to the plan had voted for it, it could not be implemented. He reminded the council that this discussion was only focused on the MWMC component of the SDCs and that the council had power over all of the other SDCs. As to what would actually happen in the event that the council gave direction to the City Manager to institute the new methodology for SDC assessment, he affirmed that it would be desirable to take every step MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 10 Regular Meeting possible to enforce the resolution passed in January and determine if the City could preempt the IGA. He thought that the IGA would have to be scrutinized to clearly ascertain whether this would be allowable. Councilor Kelly opined that failing to pass the motion would not send a strong signal. He asked the City Attorney if legal counsel would be comfortable should the council vote against the resolution and then be unable to collect the higher SDCs due to the constraints dictated by the IGA. Mr. Klein responded that, likely, the City would continue to do as it had since January, which was to collect the SDCs but without the benefit of the new methodology that would increase the rate. Councilor Kelly stated that, based on advice of legal counsel, he would oppose the motion. Councilor Bettman asked the City Attorney if he saw any outstanding legal issues in the new methodology that the City Council had adopted. Mr. Klein replied that no apparent legal problems had arisen when the methodology had been reviewed in January. He said that, prior to making any assertion regarding the methodology, the City Attorney would need to review any additional issues that had been raised before the Springfield City Council and the MWMC. Councilor Bettman commented that it would be appropriate for all legal counsel to review the issue prior to reflexively reversing a decision that had been previously made. She stated that her understanding was the methodology was within the State statute and above legal issue. She reiterated her concern that the IGA was not advocating strongly enough for the ratepayers of Eugene. She pointed out that the modification would only be implemented pending agreement of both parties. She remarked that an "unlevel playing field" was created when the cost of development of new infrastructure to accommodate growth was shifted onto the ratepayers. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item 2C failed, 4:3; with councilors Pap~, Poling and Solomon voting in favor. 3. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: An Ordinance Concerning Citation Authority of University of Oregon Department of Public Safety on University Property; Adding Section 4.035 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Section 4.906 to the Code City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Sergeant Kris Martes of the Eugene Police Department (EPD) to speak to the issue. Sgt. Martes explained that she was currently assigned to the University of Oregon contract. She provided a historical perspective of the relationship between the university and the EPD, stating that the student population on the University of Oregon campus had increased by approximately 25 percent while police staffing had been reduced from five officers to one sergeant and three officers. She said that, due to drastic reductions in the number of officers available to respond to calls and to do follow-up investigation, it was necessary to free them from responding to the low- MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 11 Regular Meeting level crimes on campus. This ordinance would authorize the University's Department of Public Safety (DPS) to address these misdemeanors, specifically possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and crimes involving the abuse of alcohol. She recommended the adoption of the ordinance, calling it fiscally responsible to do so. Council President Pap~ opened the public hearing. Dan Williams, 1167 East 22nd Avenue, introduced himself as the Vice President of Administration of the University of Oregon. He expressed the university's support for the ordinance. He stressed the value and implications of adopting the proposal from the university's point of view. He felt that a natural outcome of the mutually supportive relationship of the EPD and the DPS was the community policing presence in the University neighborhood. He said that the proposed amendment to the ordinance would aid in sharing the resources of the university and the community dedicated to the general health and safety of the community in a way that would be more effective, while strengthening the positive relationship that exists between the EPD and the DPS. He thanked the council for its thoughtful consideration of the request. Anne Leavitt, 4099 Hilyard, said that she served as Vice President of Student Affairs. She related that the issue had been thoroughly discussed among the student government leaders and the issues that had been raised were addressed. She reported that it was believed the number of citations would not change, that five out of every six citations would continue to go to judicial affairs. She stated that it was hoped the citation process would increase safety for all parties, and be more efficient, effective, and satisfactory as it would not detain either the officer or the student for quite as long. She added that students had been reassured that visitors and members of the campus community would be subject to the same consequences as students were, and that to address the concern that the campus environment could be altered by this change, a public advisory council to the department of public safety had been formed. She averred that the student population had been sufficiently noticed of this change during the latter part of the school year. She advocated for passing the ordinance at this time in order to facilitate officer training in time for the beginning of the new school year in September. Thomas Hicks, 1881 Holly Avenue, spoke as the interim director for the University of Oregon Department of Safety. He asserted that enabling university officers to enforce certain municipal violations would provide the officers with additional tools to encourage young adults to make responsible choices regarding alcohol and drug use. He felt that this would encourage the efficient use of law enforcement resources. He noted that the amendment would reduce the amount of time a person would be detained because the incident would no longer be required to be first investigated by a University Public Safety officer and then by a Eugene Police Department officer. He stated that the amendment would clarify legal issues surrounding the enforcement of violations, particularly with regard to occurrences in the presence of a public safety officer and would reduce the liability of University Public Safety officers when confiscating contraband such as small amounts of marijuana. He noted that, currently, a response from the Eugene Police Department was required whenever drug paraphernalia or any amount of a controlled substance MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 12 Regular Meeting was encountered. He did not anticipate a substantial increase in citations. He stressed that, if the ordinance was approved, the university would conduct training of its officers in cooperation with the Eugene Police Department and would disseminate the necessary information to the campus community prior to the beginning of the coming school year. He reiterated his support for the amendment. Jackie Reed, PO Box 3037, spoke in her capacity as a recent University of Oregon graduate, an employee of the Department of Public Safety, a student representative of the Joint City of Eugene-University of Oregon Task Force on the West University Neighborhood, and a member of the Public Safety Advisory Council. She stated that this action would benefit all members of the campus community by allowing the University Department of Public Safety more time to respond to calls and allowing the Eugene Police Department more time to patrol the Eugene community. She supported the ordinance. Shannon Tarvin, 1997 Augusta Street, introduced herself as a sophomore at the University and the Campus Outreach Coordinator for the Associated Students of the University of Oregon and a member of the Public Safety Advisory Council. She stressed that there were not enough students in town during the summertime to provide adequate feedback on the shift in public safety responsibilities. She recommended the decision be postponed. Scott Koketsu, 1228 University of Oregon, asserted that if this ordinance was being considered during the school year, the Council Chamber would be packed with students wishing to testify. He called a hearing at this time in the school year irresponsible. He commented that, as a taxpayer of the City, he was offended by this as his tax dollars paid for Eugene police officers who had substantially more training than those public safety officers that worked on the campus. He opined that the University of Oregon Department of Public Safety was not capable of responsibly fulfilling their obligations under this measure. Council President Pap~ closed the public hearing and requested comments from his fellow councilors. Councilor Kelly stated that, prior to the hearing, he had supported this measure. He related that, though he was still inclined to be supportive, he, too, felt it inappropriate to consider this item during the summer when the student population was largely absent. He recommended that the decision on this matter be deferred until fall. He requested that staff explain why there was no distinction made between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers in the ordinance and that they define what was meant by enforcement officer in the language. Councilor Taylor agreed that this item should not have been scheduled to be heard in the summertime. She commented that such scheduling could appear deliberate on the part of City government. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling supported the ordinance, stating that the sole aim of the ordinance was to make more efficient the use of EPD resources by allowing the University DPS personnel to issue citations for minor violations. He asserted that this had been proven to work, noting that Southern Oregon University and the City of Ashland had successfully made this shift. He reiterated that this would affect anyone in violation of the law, and not just students. He opined that longer periods of detainment contributed to the exacerbation of aggressive behavior. He stressed that approval of this item was fiscally responsible. Councilor Bettman noted that the council was not scheduled to take action on the item at the current City Council meeting. She expressed support for this kind of collaboration of the University and the EPD. She noted that work toward this kind of collaboration had been going on for quite some time and that, at its essence, shifting citations for misdemeanor substance abuse to the DPS was a resource issue. She agreed with Councilor Kelly on the points in need of clarification. She noted that the student testimony in opposition at the present hearing needed more specificity, adding that though there were not as many students attending the University through the summer there was still a substantial population. She recommended that the council follow up on this after a year had passed to determine if any issues that merited redressing had arisen. Councilor Pap6 expressed support for the ordinance. He opined that this would help students to learn what kinds of responsibilities to the community they were expected to uphold in terms of behavior and lawfulness. He conveyed his concern with the training, noting that he also wanted clarification on the two questions raised by Councilor Kelly. The council took a ten-minute recess at 8 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing; and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Taylor asked Richie Weinman of the City Planning Department to present this item to the council. Mr. Weinman noted that the council had held a work session on June 11 and that action on this item was scheduled for July 28. He stated that the item before the council was a public hearing about a one-block expansion of the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE), as per the request of the City Council, which represented a minimal expansion to accommodate the development of the City parking lot that was currently a development site. He indicated that the expansion was delineated in Attachment B in the Council packet. Councilor Bettman asked about the nature of the notice provided to the residents of the area. Mr. Weinman responded that, as this was not a land use action, no notice had been required, although a postcard had been sent out to a broader area announcing a public information session on MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 14 Regular Meeting updates to the Downtown Plan, held on July 1. He stated that, included in the information, were specific references to property tax exemptions. Councilor Bettman expressed surprise that no notice of the public hearing had been provided to the residents of the neighborhood and the people who work in its vicinity. Council President Pap~ opened the public hearing. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the support of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce for the amended boundary. He called the exemption a helpful tool for development. He said that the chamber looked forward to a "more meaningful" broader boundary expansion of the MUPTE. Mitzi Colbath, 2230 Churchill Street, expressed appreciation to Councilor Bettman for her comment regarding the noticing. She agreed that people who lived within the vicinity of the proposed expansion of the MUPTE boundary should have been noticed. Ms. Colbath commented that the exemption provided for this specific site made sense in the context of home ownership and other targeted factors. She opined, however, that budget expenditures needed to be carefully considered when discussing the MUPTE. She noted that she had researched two projects that had been granted exemptions in the downtown area and had determined that they represented nearly $1 million in property taxes not paid to the City. She urged the council to carefully review the Johnson/Gardner report and the Terry Moore/ECO Northwest report, both of which had been reviewed by the Eugene Planning Commission. She felt that the reports did not adequately consider residual equity. She expressed her hope that the focus could be shifted to buffering the perimeter of the downtown area with home ownership, adding that she had suggested at the Planning Commission level a change in the point system to provide less incentive for rentals. Council President Pap~ closed the public hearing. He opened the floor for council comment. Councilor Bettman supported the project, calling it an attractive project that would provide home ownership opportunities. She voiced her support for a "surgical approach" to attract these sorts of projects. Regarding the noticing, Councilor Bettman requested that Mr. Taylor respond to the concern she had expressed in a memorandum. Mr. Taylor replied that this public hearing was noticed like all hearings, with a notice in the legal notices portion of the want-ads in The Register-Guard. He noted that it would be cost-prohibitive to send notices to such a large area as the expanded boundary of the MUPTE entailed. Councilor Bettman commented that the boundary under current consideration was not so large. Councilor Taylor asserted that everyone in the City should know that this was under consideration. She stated that, on principle, she felt that all citizens should pay taxes, but stated MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 15 Regular Meeting that she was willing to forego them to promote desirable development in the downtown area. She stressed that many people in this area were struggling to pay their property taxes. Councilor Meisner clarified that the council was being asked to approve an expansion of the MUPTE boundary and not being asked to approve any exemptions at this time. As such, he noted, there would be more chance to solicit citizen input. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to promote a variety of growth in the downtown area. Councilor Kelly remarked that he had never read the legal notices section of the want-ads. He suggested that some thought be given to how public awareness of hearings in general could be improved. 5. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: Resolution 4766 Authorizing the City Manager to Make Application to the State of Oregon Economic and Community Development Department for Designation of a Vertical Housing Development Zone City Manager Taylor requested that Mr. Weinman briefly present the information already provided to the council during the work session of June 13. Mr. Weinman noted that the Planning Commission had recommended the same boundary as the downtown plan boundary, as indicated on Attachment B in the council packet. He noted that, should the City adopt this zone, it would only affect the City taxes. Other jurisdictions would also have to approve it for additional property taxes to also be exempted. Councilor Bettman commented that there were some residentially zoned pockets. She expressed concern that this would create a financial incentive to apply for the zone changes, thus potentially eliminating the existing pockets of residential housing. She wondered if it would be possible to adopt the vertical housing development zone and exempt all residential areas. Mr. Weinman responded that the council could design the boundary in a multitude of different ways, but pointed out that such a program was for residential uses. Councilor Bettman asserted that there was a lot of commercial property in the downtown area and a high rate of vacancy. She explained that she saw no benefit to rezoning any residential areas to commercial areas. She requested that language be added to the resolution to exempt residential areas from the vertical housing development zone. Councilor Meisner requested that the council be provided with a map indicating the different zones and a map indicating the land uses in the area. He said that he suspected that there was very little residential zoning usage in the downtown area. Jan Childs, of the Planning and Development Department, stated that the map would not likely be "100 percent current" but that she would provide them with what was available. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 16 Regular Meeting Council President Pap~ opened the public hearing. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, stated that, consistent with the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce priority to support public policies that will lend to the revitalization of downtown Eugene, the chamber was also supporting the item that this public hearing was considering. He asserted that commercial activity would be well-supported by increased commercial development partnered with increased residential development. Michelle Emmons, 861 Ivy Avenue, spoke on behalf of Downtown Eugene, Incorporated, in her capacity as Advocacy and Marketing Director, conveying support for the vertical housing development zone. She said that the City needed tools such as this, stating that without such tools, planning was merely visionary. She stressed that, after ten years, the City would be receiving the higher amount of property taxes that a developed site would provide, rather than a lower amount from an undeveloped lot or a site in need of redevelopment. She noted that an added benefit would be the provision of affordable housing for the residents of Eugene. She remarked that the City needed to create a tangible future for the downtown area by supporting the vertical housing development zone and the MUPTE. Council President Pap~ closed the public hearing and opened the floor for comments from the council. Councilor Meisner requested information from staff providing more detail on whether an application for the vertical housing development zone was granted automatically or whether the public benefit of it was evaluated first. He also asked whether the public would be given the opportunity to comment on it. Councilor Kelly commented that he supported the idea of the program. He asked staff to clarify, at a future work session, how it would be insured that a site would not receive both the MUPTE and the vertical housing development zone exemption. He noted that the resolution language needed to be reviewed as it indicated that 2nd Avenue was the northernmost boundary when it was, in fact, never farther north than 3rd Avenue. 6. ACTION: Metro Plan Text Amendment and Goal Exception for 1-5 Detour Bridge; an Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section D., Policy #13; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Adopting a Severability Clause; and providing an Effective Date Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4841, an ordinance concerning a Metro Plan text amendment and goal exception for I-5 detour bridge. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 17 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Childs reported that the Springfield City Council had passed the ordinance addressing this same item as it had come before them, 5:1. She related that the version of the ordinance that had been passed was Ordinance B in the council packet, and had incorporated almost all of the amendments in Councilor Bettman's motion from the night of the public hearing. She noted that the only item not carried forward into the Springfield ordinance was a timeline for the deconstruction of the temporary bridge. Ms. Childs clarified, at Councilor Kelly's request, that the council had Ordinance B before them at this time. Councilor Bettman thanked staff for so accurately reflecting the intent of her motion at the joint public hearing. She supported Ordinance B and felt confident that the project would reach fruition and that the temporary bridge would be removed in a timely fashion. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 18 Regular Meeting