Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC minutes - 09/24/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 24, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Gary Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Resolution No. 4776 Adopting Updated Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Regional Wastewater System Development Charge Unit Costs and Reference Data, and Amending Resolution No. 4740 Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Resolution No. 4776, adopting updated Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission regional wastewater system development charge unit costs and reference data, and amending Resolution No. 4740. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion, although she regretted the delay in the implementation of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's (MWMC) systems development charge (SDC) methodology. She noted a settlement agreement between the Lane County Home Builders Association and the MWMC called for the inclusion of an association representative on a citizen advisory committee charged to review the methodology. While she had no objection to that, she did not want the litigants to dictate the direction of public policy by "stacking" the committee with representatives. She referred to the City's own Public Works Rates Advisory, which included representation from the Friends of Eugene, the Lane County Home Builders Association, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, the Neighborhood Leaders Council, the Voters Pool, the Neighborhood Pool, the League of Women Voters, an engineering discipline representative, and the Citizens for Public Accountability, and maintained that the committee was dominated by members who were involved with the Lane County Home Builders Association. Mr. Pap6 determined from Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson that the Lane County Home Builders Association objected to the imposition of the rate changes being proposed as a result of the prior methodology change, and a lawsuit was subsequently filed by the association. A settlement agreement was reached between the MWMC and the association allowing for the temporary adjustment to the rates while the citizen advisory committee reviewed the methodology. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated, in response to a question from Mr. Pap6, that he had not reviewed the letter from Andrew Stamp of Martin Bischoff Attorneys At-Law on behalf of the Lane County Home Builders Association. The settlement agreement had been between the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 1 Work Session association and MWMC and Eugene was not a party to the agreement. Any action taken by the council today did not speak to the settlement or any related actions or allegations. He anticipated that if Martin Bischoff continued to press the issues outlined in the letter, the City would become involved. Mr. Papd asked about the letter's allegations as they related to the poplar tree farm. Mr. Klein could not say. He indicated that changes to State law may have an effect on any methodology changes that the council saw in the future. The motion to adopt Resolution No. 4776 passed unanimously, 7:0, Ms. Solomon not yet having arrived at the meeting. B. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code Regarding Hospital and Related Medical Uses; and Adopting a Severability Clause Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle joined the council for the item. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson reminded the council of the work session that occurred on the item on September 22. Mr. Coyle referred the council to the resolution developed in response to its direction of September 22. He asked for direction on the code changes being proposed and the incentives mentioned in the resolution before the council. He said that the resolution as drafted was Mr. Klein's summary of the direction received to date. Mayor Torrey called for council comments. Ms. Nathanson spoke to the order of the action to be taken, suggesting that the council discuss the ordinance before the resolution. Mr. Klein asked the council to postpone adoption of the ordinance pending technical fixes to the definitions. He suggested that if the council wished to place a motion on the table, it could direct the manager to bring back the ordinance with technical fixes. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Nathanson thought incentives for a hospital that located in a site that the City preferred were a good idea, but wanted to ensure that such incentives were not a hollow promise. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to direct staff to bring back the ordinance with technical changes. Ms. Nathanson reiterated that she wanted to ensure that the council followed through on its commitment to make siting a new hospital easier. She also wanted to ensure that the city had at least one hospital. She thought the council could change the City's Zoning Code in ways that were responsive to a new hospital use while responsibly protecting adjacent uses, including residential uses. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by directing that staff modify the recommendation to require that the hospital use be on an arterial or collector street, and that any adjustments to residential standards require a conditional use permit. Mr. Kelly questioned whether the amendment was actually responsive to what the two local hospitals needed. He said that PeaceHealth had indicated that its concerns were focused on the Hilyard campus, and its representatives were satisfied by the provisions of the ordinance. McKenzie-Willamette Hospital offered very general comments. Neither provider gave direction to the City as to what they preferred to see. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council defer action on bringing back the ordinance until the council adopted the resolution, which would provide a facilitator that would allow the City to work with the hospital on what was wanted. Mr. Pap6 asked for a definition of hospital that did not include language regarding the certificate of need. Mr. Klein said that was one of the definitions under consideration. Mr. Pap6 said he preferred to act on the zoning ordinance prior to the resolution so the hospitals had certainty about what to expect when attempting to site a facility. Ms. Bettman supported the conditional use permit (CUP) approach in residential zones because it provided a level of protection that did not exist in the staff-proposed ordinance. Regarding the issue of locating a hospital on a collector or arterial, Ms. Bettman said there were many neighborhood streets that were collector streets, and she expressed concern about locating a hospital on such a street. She asked if any of the ten sites previously identified by staff as potential hospital sites would be affected by the amendment. Mr. Coyle recalled that the ten sites in question were the candidate sites for inducements, which was the subject of the resolution. He indicated that none of those sites were on non-arterial or non-collector streets. The motion would not impact those sites, but it would affect the Zoning Code, which applied to all land inside the city. Ms. Bettman believed that the ten sites in question encompassed the range of possibilities, and asked if there were sites outside the ten sites where a hospital could locate. Mr. Carlson recalled testimony before the council suggesting that a hospital could be located anywhere in the community. The intent of the amendment would preclude a hospital from locating anywhere. Ms. Bettman suggested that the reference in the amendment to collectors could be omitted without impacting any of the ten sites. Ms. Nathanson accepted as a friendly amendment a suggestion from Ms. Bettman, who seconded the amendment, to use the phrase ~arterial or major collector." Mr. Meisner questioned the speed at which the process was moving. He said he supported the amendment with the addition of the friendly amendment. However, at this time, he was unsure of his vote on the final ordinance. Mr. Meisner pointed out that there were neighborhoods in the community that were residential in nature but not zoned residential. There were also sites that could be considered in areas that were in industrial uses but were zoned for residential use. He asked staff about the impact of limiting the amendment to the zoning and designation of land as opposed to use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor indicated support for the amendment, although she preferred to take a site-specific approach to hospital siting. She continued to have concerns about locating hospitals in R-1 (Low- Density Residential) and R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) neighborhoods. Mr. Pap~ asked the zoning of the current hospital, and if it was an outright permitted use. Mr. Coyle said that he would recommend changes to the Zoning Code that would allow the Hilyard campus to be a permitted use. The site was currently zoned R-3/CU. He noted that there were refinement plan policies related to the property as well, and staff would have to review those policies. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Coyle that in that case, there would be no CUP on the PeaceHealth site. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Coyle said all of the ten sites identified by staff were on an arterial or major collector. Mr. Poling supported the amendment as he thought it reflected the council's original direction when it had discussed hospital siting. Mayor Torrey said he wanted to ensure that the Hilyard campus was an outright permitted use, and asked if staff was working to make that happen. Mr. Coyle said yes. Ms. Bettman asked if the recommendation to make the Hilyard campus an outright permitted use would require the council to hold another public hearing. Mr. Klein said that a new public hearing was not required. Referring to the question of the certificate of need and who had one, Ms. Nathanson did not want the council to be perceived as playing favorites among providers. She said that the council should produce a zoning code for the present and the future, regardless of who held a certificate of need. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that business decisions change over time. She wanted an even playing field for all people. The zoning code should be blind to particular business entities. She wanted Eugene citizens to have equal access for health care. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly did not perceive anything in the ordinance or the resolution as favoring one entity over another, outside a technical misstatement in the ordinance the attorneys intended to correct. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that earlier, a councilor had asked about the impact of the motion on the ten staff-identified sites; she did not want an ordinance that applied to ten sites or two providers, but rather one that applied citywide and was enduring. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the main motion. Mr. Pap~ said that McKenzie-Willamette Hospital would soon be looking for a new hospital site, and he wanted the council to adopt an ordinance soon so that the hospital could accomplish that task. He believed that, if the council wanted Eugene to have a hospital, it should get its work done so the hospital could then do its work. Mr. Pap~ said that the council needed to remember it was not the %enter of the universe" when it came to how it handled land use. He believed that the council had pushed out the previous hospital and was about to push out the federal courthouse, and he did not want to make that same mistake again. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Torrey also urged action soon given that there were several upcoming meetings where the council would not have a full complement of members. Mr. Kelly recalled that the mayor had tested the council's support for the federal courthouse at the Monday meeting and there was unanimous support for the courthouse. The council was doing what it could to retain the courthouse. He asked the council to avoid hyperbolic statements. Speaking to the main motion, Mr. Kelly did not support the motion at this time because the council had yet to hear from the two providers. While he acknowledged Ms. Nathanson's remarks about the need for a code that was not provider-specific, he believed that the council needed to hear from the board of the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital about its needs. He said that did not mean he would not support the motion in the future. Ms. Bettman was unsure she was prepared to support the ordinance at this time. The changes being proposed were intended to simplify hospital siting, but she thought they complicated that task. She shared Mr. Kelly's interest in a discussion with the providers to determine their needs before the council took final action, or alternatively, adoption of a site-by-site response. She thought the latter approach a more streamlined approach. Ms. Bettman noted that it was likely the council would also have to adopt changes to refinement plans if a hospital located within the boundaries of such a plan. She suggested that in rush to get something done, the council might be missing opportunities or complicating issues for the hospitals. If she heard from the providers that the ordinance was acceptable, Ms. Bettman indicated she might change her mind. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Carlson to confirm that the motion was direction to staff to bring back an ordinance for adoption by the council. Mr. Carlson said yes. Mr. Meisner said that he was comfortable giving staff direction given the council would take final action later. He did not know how he would vote on the final ordinance, and pointed out it could be amended further before adoption. Ms. Taylor did not support moving forward with the ordinance at this time. She was concerned about the need to be fair to all entities. She preferred to resolve the issues related to the resolution and endorsed Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding a site-by-site approach. Mayor Torrey indicated support for moving forward with the motion. He believed the best incentive that Eugene could give a potential provider was predictability about what was allowed. He pointed out that the ordinance in question could be changed. Mayor Torrey noted that the council had an extensive discussion of incentives on September 22. He said that the council would make a statement with what it did, and he hoped that it stated it was prepared to allow hospital providers to make choices within the realm of the ordinance drafted by staff and as amended by the council. Ms. Nathanson did not believe the process was being rushed. She pointed out that the council asked staff to return with an ordinance in April 2003 and had been talking about the issue longer than that. Ms. Nathanson spoke to Mr. Kelly's interest in waiting until the hospitals made their needs known, saying she assumed staff had been talking to those with knowledge about hospital siting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 5 Work Session She asked if the code was developed without any understanding of what the hospitals need or without input from the hospitals. Mr. Coyle said no. He said that the process had been an iterative one. The hospitals had commented publicly on several of their needs, such as facility size and adjoining land uses, and staff had met several times with both providers to discuss their concerns. Ms. Nathanson thought the City had addressed Mr. Kelly's concerns, and indicated she did not find those arguments persuasive. In response to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly said he was only able to respond to the information provided to him. The only input he had received from the providers was their testimony at the public hearings. If there was other information from the providers or other experts to staff that was not shared with the council, that made it difficult for him to understand to what extent their needs were taken into account. He said that he was bothered a bit by the situation. He understood that out of necessity staff needed to have conversations with the providers about particular sites or about technical issues without council involvement. However, to gauge whether the ordinance met the providers' needs, he needed to hear from them. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Meisner's comments about the fact the motion merely gave staff direction, but said he reiterated that the council did not know if the ordinance was responsive to the hospitals' needs, and further, it went against the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission. Ms. Bettman said that the ordinance removed existing standards and provisions that protected existing development. She acknowledged that might be appropriate in some cases. She recalled that the council had embarked on the Zoning Code changes to secure a new hospital because PeaceHealth was moving to Springfield. The council had been focused on attracting a major medical facility to Eugene. Ms. Bettman said that fairness to both hospitals was an afterthought that was introduced later in the process. She recalled the McKenzie-Willamette Hospital representatives had indicated to the council that it had not developed its siting policies, so she did not think the council had heard from the hospital about what it needed. She reiterated her concern that the ordinance would complicate the process. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman. She was concerned about the needs of the providers as well as the needs of the neighborhoods. She wanted to exempt R-l, R- 1.5, and R-2 zones from the ordinance, but given that some R-2 property might be appropriate in some cases, she preferred a site-by-site approach. She added that she never assumed that staff had not talked to experts on hospitals; she assumed that they had. Mr. Carlson indicated that the council would not have all members available for final action until October 20. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voted no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4778, a resolution supporting the siting of a hospital within the City of Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly emphasized that the resolution was applicable to all providers. He quoted an e-mail from Jack Roberts of the Metropolitan Partnership, which expressed his support for the proposed resolution. Mr. Papd asked if the definition of"hospital" included a private surgery center, for example. Mr. Kelly referred him to Finding C, adding he did not believe that the definition allowed for the City to provide such a use with financial incentives. Mr. Klein confirmed that the definition of a "hospital" would be revised to include a hospital with a trauma center, 24-hour emergency access, surgery, etc. Mr. Coyle concurred with a suggestion from Mr. Papd that the waiver of permit fees could be an incentive for a hospital provider and could be added to the list of incentives. He pointed out that two providers could want the same level of value but different incentives. Mr. Coyle believed that the providers would need to be involved in those discussions. Mr. Pap6 suggested text that read "Work to provide incentives that would be valuable to the particular provider." Mr. Coyle believed that such text was acceptable and addressed the issue that such incentives were situational. Mr. Pap6 questioned the inclusion of Finding C in the resolution. He did not think a facilitator was needed as he thought it created an additional hurdle for the provider to overcome. However, if there was to be a facilitator, he thought it should be one the provider supported. He suggested the finding be deleted or a list of potential facilitators be included in the resolution. Mr. Papd moved to strike Finding C from the resolution. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Papd moved to insert the following text in Finding C: "... from a list of three names provided by the provider." The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Meisner supported the resolution before the council. However, he regretted the proscriptive nature of the language in Section 1 and suggested text that indicated the council would provide incentives that "may include but are not limited to the following." Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman accepted Mr. Meisner's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Bettman did not think the City could afford to provide incentives to development such as surgery centers, which would be developed anyway. The resolution was focused on a full-service provider, which was what the community needed. She said that the resolution was a positive, assertive statement of the council's intent. She thanked Mr. Roberts for his support of the resolution and City staff and legal counsel for their work on the resolution. She hoped that the council would support the motion on a unanimous vote. Mr. Poling acknowledged that the item before the council was a nonbinding resolution, but expressed concern that in the future it would be "waved in front of the council as chiseled in stone." MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend Section A of the resolution as follows: ~The council welcomes and supports the siting of a major hospital anywhere within the city of Eugene as outlined within Ordinance No. 4849. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the council had not yet passed the ordinance referred to in the motion. Ms. Nathanson indicated she seconded the motion for the sake of discussion. Mr. Poling acknowledged the council had not passed the ordinance. He believed that the hospital should determine where it should locate. If the hospital chose to locate in the incentive area, it could take advantage of the incentives. Mr. Meisner believed that the amendment was unnecessary. He said that the general statement at the beginning of Section A and the text in Section B stated everything that Mr. Poling wished to say. He suggesting that tying the resolution to an ordinance yet to be adopted was problematic. While he acknowledged Mr. Poling's intent, he believed the amendment was redundant and did not add clarity. Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman concurred with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the amendment be reworded to refer to ;;anywhere zoned for such a facility" rather than to the ordinance. Mr. Klein concurred with Mr. Meisner that the amendment was not necessary. He suggested that one option was for the council to add ;;anywhere" right before the phrase ;;the city of Eugene." Mr. Poling and Ms. Nathanson accepted Mr. Klein's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly said he could not vote for the amendment because he believed it did not add anything, and he questioned whether Mr. Poling would actually welcome a hospital within 500 feet of his home. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Poling voted yes, and Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voted no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amendment, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Nathanson said that she supported signaling to the providers that the City was serious about assisting them. However, she was concerned that the resolution was vague, making the future cost of the incentives unknown. The council did not know what financial burdens it was placing on the City in the future. Regarding Finding C, Ms. Nathanson said that the finding could be interpreted as meaning that the City had not been working with the hospitals, which was not the case. Staff had carried out the council's direction to be responsive to the hospitals. She thanked staff for its efforts. While she believed that such a resolution might have some policy problems, MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Nathanson supported it, and hoped the council would support similar resolutions in the future. Mr. Papd questioned how Finding C was an incentive for the hospital. Mr. Kelly cited the City's former Business Assistance Team as an example of a type of facilitator that could assist the hospitals. He thought the finding provided an equivalent sort of function. Mr. Kelly said that the facilitator could be a dedicated City staff or could be a contractor who was completely focused on the task. Mr. Papd indicated he could support the resolution because of the change proposed by Mr. Meisner related to the list of incentives. Speaking to Mr. Papd's concerns regarding a facilitator, Ms. Bettman recalled that the City had subcontracted with its former City Manager Jim Johnson to work on hospital issues, and said she believed that there were knowledgeable experts in the community that the City could call upon. She noted that the proposal for a facilitator had come from her conversations with Jack Roberts. Ms. Bettman suggested that an incentive for a centrally located hospital could be an urban renewal district. That was not included on the list, but she had not intended the list to be exclusive. Mr. Poling questioned limiting the areas to which incentives could be applied. He thought that the technological advances realized by improvements to the Ferry Street Corridor and the 1-5 bridges alleviated the need to have a hospital south and west of the river. Mr. Poling moved to amend the resolution by dropping the text in Section 2 that read "south and west of the Willamette River." The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Meisner called for a unanimous vote on the main motion. He believed adoption of Mr. Poling's amendment would have resulted in a divided vote. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Meisner about the desirability of a unanimous vote. She called on the council to adopt the needed Zoning Code amendments. She feared that in the absence of those amendments, the council could send a signal that turned out to be a hollow gesture. Mayor Torrey said that he had concerns about the resolution because he feared that it would preclude one of the providers from receiving some of the incentives listed. He asked that the definitions be modified to include an acute care in-patient facility if possible. Speaking to the potential of waiving fees and SDCs, Mayor Torrey pointed out that the City had limited dollars for new capital expenditures, and waiving fees limited those dollars still further. He said that any incentives cost the City money; such incentives were not free and were accompanied by a price tag. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman pointed out that the City could provide some up-front incentives to a hospital located 2-1/2 miles from the center because it would save the City money in the long-term if the City did not have to provide new infrastructure and services to a new hospital. Speaking to the mayor's concerns, Ms. Bettman assured the mayor that the resolution was not exclusive, but rather inclusive. She offered to share information she had on the topic with Mayor Torrey. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks. He said that the resolution did not preclude PeaceHealth from taking advantage of the incentives. If PeaceHealth should choose to provide a facility at the Hilyard campus or anywhere in the geographic boundaries that included emergency care, ICU, and in-patient beds, it would be eligible for the same incentives. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Surface Transportation Program - Urban Fund Allocation City Engineer Mark Schoening was present for the item. He noted that Paul Thompson and Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) were also present to answer any technical questions the council had on the federal Surface Transportation Program allocations or the process and criteria established and adopted by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He referred to the Agenda Item Summary, which included a review of the allocation process, and noted the allocations to the City of Eugene recommended by the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) in three project categories: modernization, preservation, and planning and project development. The MPC approved the list of allocations for public review; an open house was scheduled for September 25, and the MPC would take action on the fund allocation and metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program at its October 9 meeting. Mr. Schoening reported that the project list was drawn from the City's Capital Improvement Program, capital budgeting process, and TransPlan. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager and City Transportation Planning Committee representatives to work with LCOG and the MPC to modify the STP-U programming and evaluation criteria in order to enable jurisdictions to facilitate and prioritize the funding of operations, maintenance, and preservation of the road system, if they so choose. Ms. Bettman spoke in support of the motion. She said that it would allow the council to modify the programming criteria so it could spend the money on the City's maintenance and preservation backlog. She said that the criteria was only recently approved by the MPC, and she had only agreed to the 20 percent allocation to modernization because she had asked if the City could use the money for maintenance and preservation, and the answer had been yes. The project list subsequently presented by staff had included projects that created new capacity. She was told that the projects were picked because they scored highly against the criteria, not because they were a high priority for the City. She wanted to review and revise the criteria again so that MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 10 Work Session Eugene could fund its preservation and maintenance backlog. Ms. Bettman said the City's choices would not affect the decisions of its partner agencies in TransPlan. Ms. Bettman noted that there were two new capital facilities in the 2004 CIP and both were intended to be paid for by assessments and SDCs. One project, the Avalon Legacy project, was partially underwritten by Lane County Road Funds, which could also be used on maintenance and preservation. However, the council had not made that choice. The other project, the Chad Drive extension, was offered for the STP funding, which could also be used for maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman believed that if the City asked residents to financially support maintenance and preservation, it was %bligated" to spend every available dollar on that purpose as well. Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. He recalled that on July 28, the council passed a motion directing staff to prepare a proposal that directed any transportation management area dollars for operations, preservation, and maintenance; this was the first opportunity for staff to implement that direction, and he was surprised that it was not followed. The motion would underscore the council's action of July 28. He said that the motion also sent a signal to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the City's priorities related to operations and maintenance. Mr. Meisner clarified with Ms. Bettman that the reference to ~they" in the motion was a reference to Springfield and Lane County. He indicated support for the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how bicycle path projects selected for funding were chosen, Mr. Schoening said that those projects were selected because these funds were the only funds the City had to maintain its off-street bicycle paths. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Schoening said that the funding of the Chad Drive extension would include a combination of assessments, STP funds, and systems development charge revenues. Ms. Taylor recalled that Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green had asked the council why it did not fund maintenance with County Road Funds if that was a concern. She asked how the City maintained its bicycle paths in the absence of the transportation system maintenance fee. Mr. Carlson responded that the City had not been preserving its bicycle paths. General Fund dollars were used to sweep bicycle paths and do minor repairs. Mayor Torrey said that in August 2003, the MPC established the criteria for the allocations process. Staff followed the criteria established by the MPC in developing the project list. If the City elected to change the criteria, which was a change the MPC declined to make, it would require at least one vote in support of the changes from each jurisdiction to get the changes to the criteria adopted. Neither Springfield representative supported the changes. Mayor Torrey suggested that the council schedule another discussion of the allocation process. Ms. Bettman said that the MPC had to have at least one vote from Eugene to proceed with the changes. She had supported the criteria because of what she was told about the flexibility of the funding. However, it seemed to be a problem in all three categories. Road maintenance did not rise to the top of the list in the Preservation category; the bicycle projects did. While she acknowledged the need, she questioned whether it was a higher priority that other projects. Ms. Bettman said that the dollars in the Planning category appeared to fund ongoing planning efforts MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 11 Work Session that the City was doing anyway, so she wanted to use that money to plan for maintenance and preservation projects. She maintained that ~all of this money could be available to fulfill our need." Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting for three minutes. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Papd, and Ms. Solomon voted no. Ms. Bettman noted that several MPC members indicated they would await the outcome of the council's work session. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, called the question. The motion passed, 7:1, Ms. Solomon voted no. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap~ voted no. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor, City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 12 Work Session