Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of MinutesEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: July 18, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. eugene-or, gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2005, Work Session, June 13, 2005, Work Session, and June 13, 2005, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. June 8, 2005, Work Session B. June 13, 2005, Work Session C. June 13, 2005, City Council Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050718\S0507182A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall June 8, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Acquisition Update on East Fork Amazon Headwaters--Dillard Road City Manager Taylor introduced the item, noting that Parks and Open Space Division manager Johnny Medlin was present to provide the council with an update about the potential for the City to acquire a parcel located on Dillard Road in the southeast hills area of Eugene. Mr. Medlin recalled the property was considered by the council as part of the Stream Corridor Acquisition Study in 2001 and at that time it was a Tier 3 site known as Parcel 11. At that time, the council directed staff to explore the acquisition of the stream corridor contained by the property. He reported that the City had purchased 54 acres of the more than 90-plus acre parcel shortly thereafter, using Stormwater Funds and funds from the 1998 parks and open space bond. He called the council's attention to an enlarged version of Exhibit C from the council's meeting packet, also mounted on the wall, which showed the extent of the City-owned property. Mr. Medlin said the City continued discussions with a previous property owner about the potential of acquiring additional stream corridor segments in the remaining area. At one point, City staff believed it had reached agreement with the property owner to acquire those segments; however, the property owner asked the City to consider acquisition of the entire site. Mr. Medlin noted that initial acquisition of the total site was not considered a priority in the ridgeline trail acquisition program as the ridgeline trail already had available public property in this area. However, the parcel would provide the City with an opportunity to create an additional connection to the trail for properties to the north. Mr. Medlin said the City made an offer of $300,000 for the property in the hopes it would spur the donation of the remaining value of the property. Staff thought it had reached an agreement on the purchase but it was subsequently sold to another party for $325,000. Mr. Medlin said staffbegan to work with the new property owner to acquire the entire parcel, and that individual indicated his willingness to sell the parcel for $600,000 if the City could meet the conditions of the sale and complete the transaction by October 1, 2004. The City had been unable to do so. He noted the City's appraisal for the property was about $430,000. Mr. Medlin said that on offer was made for the property for the appraised amount, but the offer was declined. Mr. Medlin said the City had indicated to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 1 Work Session the property owner it was still interested in purchasing the property. The owner wanted to examine the development potential of the property before further discussions with the City. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Medlin said City staff believed it had authorization to proceed with the acquisition given the council's past actions related to the Stream Corridor Acquisition program and the ridgeline trail acquisition program. Ms. Taylor said people continued to say south Eugene had too many parks; but the reports from Mr. Medlin and consultant Eben Fodor, who was commissioned by area residents, indicated that Ms. Ortiz's ward, Ward 1, had the most parks of any ward. She acknowledged that south Eugene had more commu- nity-type parks and large open spaces. Ms. Taylor believed significant natural resources needed to be preserved where they existed. She maintained those areas belonged to everyone in the city, not just those who live near them. They contribute to the community's beauty and health. Ms. Taylor said there were residents willing to help the City find the money to purchase the property and she thought the City should work with them. She said the area in question was pristine but unprotected, as noted by Mr. Medlin himself in a grant application. The property had never been logged and it contained two stream channels, wetlands, old growth maple trees, and Douglas fir trees. It was important for water quality and storm water retention. Mr. Kelly thanked staff and the residents of the area for providing the council with additional information. He observed that the acquisition would also support the metropolitan Rivers to Ridges Plan and was supported for that reason by the Lane Council of Governments and Lane County Parks Department. Mr. Kelly said information provided to the council suggested that long-term maintenance costs for the stream corridors on the site were likely to be less than if the parcel was developed, due to the change in impervious areas and modifications to the vegetation. Mr. Kelly wanted staff to keep talking to the property owner and neighbors and to develop a public- private partnership that would lead to protection of the area in question. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the information provided by staff and the residents, which she believed established that the property in question was valuable. She said the only gap in the materials she perceived was a lack of discussion about best management practices and green infrastructure approaches. She saw the acquisition as an asset in that regard. She wanted City staff to pursue the property acquisition with renewed vigor. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Medlin that the State grant funding the City sought for the purchase was an annual grant, depending on funding available from the federal government. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could reapply for the grant funding from the State this year. Mr. Medlin said he would if he believed the City had a willing seller. The grant did not require a willing seller, but it did require the City to expend the grant award within a certain time period, which usually required the cooperation of the property owner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap6 believed the trustee of the previous owners would disagree with the staff summary of the City' s attempts to purchase the property. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Medlin that the City purchased the original 54 acres because of the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program and because of its proximity to the ridgeline trail. There were multiple objectives for the purchase. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Medlin confirmed that staff asked an appraiser and engineering firm to look at the development potential of the property. Mr. Pap6 asked if 110 housing units could be accommodated on the property. Acting Planning Division Manager Steve Nystrom did not know what was possible at this time. He believed the current zoning district would allow closer to 200 units, but what was realistic could differ from that estimate. Mr. Medlin added that the City had hoped for an appraisal that supported the higher asking price of $600,000 and did not receive that. Mr. Pap6 said he was not contending the south hills were "over-parked" but he contended other areas of the community were "under-parked." He said that he did not object if someone purchased the property and donated it to the City. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Medlin that the City had generally achieved its goals for acres in the ridgeline trail system but had about $150,000 left for property acquisitions. Mr. Medlin called the council's attention to a map of City park land that illustrated the extent of ridgeline trail acquisitions and demonstrated some of the remaining gaps in the system. He believed there was a need for further acquisitions. Mr. Pap6 agreed, but said the City needed community parks in the north and it would take even more funding to get that done. He wanted to see parks and open space purchases in that area. Mr. Medlin noted that of the bond proceeds, there was also money for a neighborhood park in Santa Clara. He concurred, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, that funding would not both buy and develop a park in that area. Mr. Pryor said he had not heard anyone say the property was not of interest if it could be acquired. However, he questioned whether there were the resources to purchase it at this time. No one seemed to know what the price would be. He said there appeared to be continuing interest in acquisition on the part of the council. He said the grant application must be a package. He thought it would be premature to make a motion at this time and suggested the council let the process "play out." Ms. Solomon agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. She was concerned about the City's purchase of property that was currently subject to property taxes being taken off the tax rolls at a time such revenues were needed. She preferred to continue with the proposed stormwater acquisition. She suggested staff continue negotiations with the property owner and that the neighbors purchase the property and donate it to the City if they wanted. She also suggested that if the City purchased the property, it give up an equal amount of land someplace else to ensure that revenues were not reduced, thus further eroding the City's ability to provide desired services to citizens. Mr. Poling also supported the acquisition of the property. He suggested the City continue to work on the acquisition before it made a grant application to the State for funding. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 3 Work Session In regard to Ms. Solomon's suggestion that the City give up properties, Mr. Poling agreed that the north and west were under-parked and the City had acquired properties in those areas with promises to develop them as parks. He cited the former Willakenzie School site as an example. He could not see the City giving up those properties for development. He recommended staff proceed and attempt to work out an agreement with the property owner and encourage a public-private partnership. Ms. Ortiz said she was learning from the process that the council needed to let the community define what it needed, rather than telling residents what they were gong to get. She said the residents were telling the City what they wanted in regard to the parks. Mayor Piercy said parks and open spaces served different functions. Some open space was for walking and exercising, and other open spaces were more necessary for the health of the community because of their other functions, such as stormwater retention. Mayor Piercy was unsure how to separate those functions, saying that when placed in the "same pile" they competed against each other. Mr. Medlin believed that parks and open spaces had different functions but were also very similar. He pointed out that their relationships to recreation, quality of life, and the experience of living in Eugene. Those who used the City's active parks for programmed activities also enjoyed the experience of using an open space not impacted by development. Open spaces were managed for their ecological functions, such as habitat and stormwater, as well as their recreation functions. Mayor Piercy agreed with Mr. Medlin's remarks, saying she was concerned that a discussion focused on the allocation of parks acreage alone missed the other values that came from having open spaces in the community. City Manager Taylor observed that in the case of the property in question, the issues of the ridgeline trail and stream corridor access came together. He believed that with the neighbors' interest in the property and the willingness of the property owner to continue discussions, it was possible the City could acquire the property successfully and within its means. He assured the council and neighborhood that City staff was committed to continuing the discussion with the property owner. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of questions and comments. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mayor Piercy that both open spaces and park lands were needed. She commended the foresight shown by previous Eugene leaders in purchasing park land for the future of the community. Ms. Taylor noted the presence of Pileated woodpeckers on the Dillard property. Ms. Taylor spoke of the potential of the pollution that could be created by development in this area of the community. She said that evidence had been provided to the council that the sewer system was in danger of failure. The development of the land would put more strain on that system and on the Amazon Creek. Ms. Taylor did not think the property should be developed at all. Ms. Bettman suggested the council consider the issue as an opportunity to target high-density residential development throughout the community and "preserve livability," rather than attempt to spread high- density development across all neighborhoods in a "cookie-cutter form." She said the Parks and Open Space Division and the Planning Division could work with the property owner and developer to site a high-density housing development on the property while preserving the site's natural amenities and enhancing access to the ridgeline trail. She suggested that people would wish to purchase condominiums with access to hiking trails. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pap6 asked what protection the property currently had if it could not be purchased. Mr. Nystrom said the City had tree-cutting provisions that partially protected the vegetation on the property. The criteria associated with the planned unit development (PUD) process would govern any development on the property, and that included provisions for natural resource protection. Mr. Nystrom said the City had some erosion control regulations that prohibited removal of vegetation within stream corridors. A specific development proposal would trigger more regulations and address the issue of maximizing the develop- ment potential of the site while protecting natural resources. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that the planned unit development process would likely be required for the property. Mr. Pap6 suggested that what Ms. Bettman proposed to achieve might be achieved through that process. Mr. Nystrom concurred. Mr. Pap6 asked if staff tracked the loss of land to the land supply through as a result of the City's purchase of park lands and open spaces. Acting Planning and Development Director Susan Muir indicated the City maintained a buildable lands supply inventory that would be updated through the next periodic review process. She acknowledged the property in question was included in the current residential lands supply. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:2 Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Taylor. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to review and up- date the Goal 5 wildlife habitat inventory for the south hills, using the safe harbor inven- tory methodology in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-0110 in light of new in- formation concerning the presence of the sensitive species Pileated Woodpecker in sub- stantial areas of the south hills. Ms. Taylor said that the State gave the community a choice of how to approach its inventory. The safe harbor approach allowed for the exclusion of fish but not for the exclusion of significant wildlife habitat. Staff had proceeded with the inventory on the basis that there was no significant wildlife habitat. However, significant habitat performed a life support function for wildlife species listed by the federal government as endangered or threatened, or by the State of Oregon as threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Ms. Taylor said the State listed the Pileated woodpecker as a sensitive species, so it was her assertion that the City was required to apply the standard inventory process rather than the safe harbor process. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions on the motion. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon about the impact of the proposed motion, Mr. Bj6rklund said the City had been working on the Goal 5 process for 15 years, and was within a few months of being done with the Goal 5 work required by periodic review. The motion would add several months to that effort by adding new areas to the inventory. He said the motion, if passed, would not prevent a development proposal for the property from going forward as that process moved much more quickly than the Goal 5 process. He suggested that staff be directed to look at the City's options under the Oregon Administrative Rules for how to revisit the area of concern and determine if, for example, there were other habitat types that should be examined. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said the motion came up as a result of research done by the Friends of Eugene (FOE) in regard to the property in question, he believed it stood alone and apart from the earlier discussion. He indicated support for the motion, but not because it would preclude development of the property. He said the research did not indicate the City would automatically add property to the inventory; there were the Oregon Administrative Rules to consider in that regard. He said the research seemed to indicate the City erred in how it applied the Oregon Administrative Rules to the properties. Mr. Kelly perceived the motion as being direction to staff to double-check its work. He suggested that in the long-mn it could make completion of the Goal 5 work move more smoothly by avoiding a "last minute blow-up" and possible litigation. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She supported the motion for those reasons. Regarding the issue of opportunity siting versus planned unit developments, Ms. Bettman expressed concern that staff did not rigorously pursue the types of outcomes she was discussing when she discussed opportunity siting. She believed it might still be necessary for the City to purchase of a part of the property to ensure any residential development was compatible with the surrounding area and developed at the highest possible densities while the remainder was preserved. She did not think the existing PUD process did enough to protect the community and maximize the City's ability to keep residences within the urban growth boundary. For that reason, she thought another tool was needed, or the PUD process should be strengthened. Mr. Pap6 said he did not have enough information to act on the motion at this time. He wanted staff verification of the information provided by the residents. He could support something that brought back a process for the council to review. Mr. Lidz asked if the intent of the motion was to add to the current Goal 5 process, or was the work it called for to be completed after that process was done. Ms. Taylor said it was intended to be added to the current process. She maintained the issue was a legal issue. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that, while he had not reviewed the motion in question, he did not interpret the motion as being restricted to any particular inventory category. Mr. Bj6rklund again emphasized the time that would be added to the process as the City had done no work on the areas in question since 2003. There was a very large body of work needed to add any areas to the inventory before the staff could get recommendations to the Planning Commission on whether to protect them. In addition, staff had not prepared any regulatory tools specific to the South Hills, and the Goal 5 process was not completed if sites were to be protected until the City had adopted and applied protection measures to the sites. Acquisition was one component of that, but not the only one. Mr. Pap6 asked the advantage of getting the Goal 5 inventory completed sooner. Mr. Bj6rklund said the City was operating under a State deadline to complete the inventory by the end of June, and while the City would miss the deadline, it had committed to the State to complete that work as soon after that deadline as possible. The issue would come before the council in September. Mr. Bj6rklund said a delay meant that any protection measures applied to sites in the current adopted inventory would not be applied until much later, and those areas would be exposed to potential impacts during that period. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Bj6rklund noted that the adopted inventory was legal, acknowledged by the State, and had survived several appeals. Passage of the motion meant the council would be amending an adopted and acknowl- edged inventory. He said the process was not an open process that allowed for corrections along the way. The City must go back and amend the adopted inventory. Mr. Pap6 called for the question. Ms. Solomon seconded the motion. City Manager Taylor suggested the motion was the subject of an important policy discussion and delay would allow for a staff response. Mayor Piercy asked if the delay would allow the council to address the issue in the current process if it chose to. City Manager Taylor believed so. He said the motion arose out of another issue, the Dillard - Nectar Way property, and required another discussion as it had larger implications. The motion to call the question passed unanimously. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Taylor expressed the hope the City would attempt to purchase the property. Mr. Kelly suggested a work session be scheduled soon to "flesh out the subtleties" of the issue. B. Work Session: Programming of Surface Transportation Program-Urban Funds City Engineer Mark Schocning was present for thc item. Hc asked the council to approve thc list of projects shown as in Attachment A to thc Agenda Item Summary so that staff could complete applications and submit them to thc metropolitan planning organization (MPO), which would then begin the process of programming available Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) funds. Hc reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) programmed only 85 percent of thc available funds and now recommended that 100 percent of fiscal year (FY) 2004 and 98 percent of FY05 and FY06 funds be programmed. Those funds, in combination with another MPC action, totaled $1.3 million. Continuing, Mr. Schoening said that at its May meeting, the MPC passed a motion that divided thc funding into three program categories: 1) preservation; 2) modernization and planning and project development; and 3) transportation demand management. Staff recommended projccts to be funded in thc preservation and modernization and planning and project development categories. Mr. Schoening noted thc four proposed street and off-street bicycle preservation projects and called thc council's attention to the funding split for thc proposed modernization and planning and projcct development projcct, which was thc road improvements related to thc federal courthouse. Mr. Schocning noted that applications to the MPO were duc the next day. A technical advisory subcom- mittee would review thc applications on June 16, followed by a review by thc Transportation Planning Committee on June 23. The MPC was scheduled to take action on thc reprogramming of funds on July 14. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Schoening noted that in the future, the process would involve the recently formed MPO Citizen Advisory Committee. He reported there was no time in the current process to change the criteria for how projects were scored; the last time projects were scored the City's street preservation projects scored low because they had a single purpose and the current criteria were from TransPlan and were related to alternate modes. Bicycle preservation projects scored much higher. In the next funding cycle, the Eugene staff on the TPC would work to influence the criteria so street preservation projects would score higher. Mayor Piercy called for a first round of cormnents and questions. Ms. Bettman questioned why there was no time to change the criteria given that she recalled the council directed staff to seek changes in the criteria in January. Mr. Schoening recalled that at that time, the council gave staff direction on the allocation split between funding categories. The MPC had adopted a motion at its May meeting that gave the preservation category 60 percent of the funding, combined the modernization and planning and project development categories and allocated 30 percent of the funding to that category, and allocated 10 percent of available funding to transportation demand management. Ms. Bettman did not believe that was consistent with the direction the council gave to staff and its MPC delegates. She maintained the council wanted criteria that allowed Eugene to utilize flexible transporta- tion funding for preservation. The matrix employed by the MPC was a self-imposed set of criteria that she believed could be dispensed with entirely. She said funding decisions were made by the TPC, which was a staff committee from all three jurisdictions. She maintained that the TPC could make its decisions on the basis of adopted Eugene council policy, which was for funding of preservation projects. Ms. Bettman appreciated the inclusion of the changes to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) policies. Ms. Bettman said that when the council adopted the list, it was not just giving the nod to those projects, but it was also "okaying" an exception to its priorities to fund preservation projects first with any eligible money. She asked about the source of funding for the courthouse improvements in the CIP. Mr. Schoening said the funding was identified as all-federal funding except for a local match, which was to come from the County. Ms. Bettman said the council would also be making a policy exception by changing the funding source for the courthouse project. She believed those policies should have been addressed in the AIS. Ms. Bettman objected to using STP-U moneys and urban renewal funds for the road improvements associated with the federal courthouse. She recalled that she was the only councilor who opposed the courthouse project because she believed it would cost the community "tens of millions" in transportation dollars to make the courthouse accessible. Mayor Piercy recalled that the council agreed it wanted the MPC to adhere to its funding priorities, and the council's MPC representatives pushed the issue as hard as it could to the MPC. City Manager Taylor added that staff had also attempted to make the council's case for greater flexibility to address pavement preservation at the MPC and had been unsuccessful in getting changes to the allocation formula. With regard to the courthouse project, City Manager Taylor said that when the City made its commitment to the General Services Administration (GSA) about project funding, the availability of federal funding had been uncertain. The council had agreed that if the federal funding was not received, it would use MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 8 Work Session urban renewal for the project. He said the motion would otherwise require 100 percent of urban renewal activity and staff believed it preferable to save that money and use federal funds for the project. Mr. Kelly said the City's MPC representatives had worked hard to change the allocation criteria and it "was clearly a nonstarter" in that venue. He said the STP-U funds were allocated through a three-year funding cycle, and the funds in question were additional funds above what was expected to be available in that time period. The City had received a commitment from the MPC for a review of the criteria prior to the next three-year cycle; that would occur later in the year. Mr. Kelly believed it would be easier to make a stand for the City's position for a new three-year cycle. He reiterated that the City had not received any support for its desire to change the criteria. Mr. Kelly recalled that none of the funding was allocated on a jurisdictional basis, and determined from Mr. Schoening that the TPC could recommend a different funding allocation to the MPC. Mr. Kelly said he supported the bicycle path system as one of the City's major amenities. Given that such projects would score higher than a street preservation project, he suggested the City postpone submitting its bicycle projects as a way of securing some of the STP-U money for the street preservation projects. Mr. Kelly asked about the reduction in the amount of federal funding for the project from $6 million to $5 million. Mr. Schoening said that the funding amount was adopted in the federal highway omnibus bill signed by the president, and what was secured was what was thought doable. Ms. Solomon supported the list and thought the funding for the courthouse project very reasonable given what would result. She expressed support for Mr. Kelly's suggestion to remove the bicycle path projects to get more street preservation funding. Mr. Schoening said in the past funding allocation process the City's bicycle path projects were above the cut line after being scored, and the preservation projects in question fell to the very bottom of the list for the entire region. It was not likely those projects would be funded if the bicycle projects were dropped. Ms. Solomon asked why the bicycle path projects were as expensive as the street projects. Mr. Schoening said the projects cost the same, but the bicycle path projects produced more mileage than the street preservation projects. Staff selected projects that would maximize the funding that came to Eugene. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if the City dropped the bicycle path projects. Mr. Schoening said the next projects on the regional project list would be funded. Mr. Poling asked if dropping the bicycle path projects would endanger the City's chances of securing preservation money for 18th Avenue and Hilyard Street. Mr. Schoening said yes, but it was unlikely that the projects would score high enough to get funding regardless of whether the bicycle project components were dropped. Mr. Poling noted for the benefit of the viewing audience that the City was leveraging $904,000 to secure a total of $1.78 million in STP-U money for street and bicycle preservation projects. He believed that was a wise use of public money. An additional $380,000 in STP-U was earmarked for road improvements around the courthouse, and he thought it would be wise to authorize the projects. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the attached list of preservation and modernization projects for submittal of applications for federal Surface Transporta- tion Program-Urban funds to be reprogrammed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Mr. Pap6 did not think Mr. Kelly's suggestion would result in the desired outcome. Mr. Schoening concurred. He said that it was likely a Lane Transit District preservation project would compete better than a City preservation project. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bicycle path projects enhanced or preserved the existing system. Mr. Schoening indicated both enhancement and preservation would occur; the path would be widened from an eight-foot asphalt path to a ten-foot concrete path. Mr. Papd asked what commitment the City made to the GSA with regard to the courthouse road improve- ments. City Manager Taylor recalled that the council agreed to construct the road improvements using urban renewal funds as a last resort if federal funding was not forthcoming. The omnibus bill passed by Congress made $5 million available, $1 million less than hoped, and the City was obligated to fill the gap. He believed it was better to compete for the STP-U funds than to use urban renewal dollars. He thought the City was likely to be successful. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the motion because "the system was broken." Through adoption of the motion the council would be allocating money from urban renewal to road projects, and that was money the council had already diverted from schools or public safety. The road involved was a State highway that City taxpayers would be paying to relocate at the behest of the federal government. Ms. Bettman said the MPC process meant that Springfield and Lane County told Eugene how to spend its transportation dollars because the City had agreed to self-imposed "artificial criteria." The City could not do what it wanted to do with money it was eligible for. She believed all the City had to do was state it would not participate in the decision-making process as long as the criteria matrix existed. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. She asked what would happen if the council eliminated the funding intended for the courthouse road improvement projects. Mr. Schoening said the City would not submit an application for the funds and would proceed with the use of urban renewal funds as the backfill funding mechanism. The other projects on the list would go forward. Ms. Taylor was horrified to hear people talk about the deletion of bicycle path projects given the City's commitment to alternative modes of transportation. She thought those the most important projects. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by eliminating the STP-U and urban renewal funding for the courthouse if possible. Mr. Kelly said although he was unsure of the amendment's intent, it essentially revisited a past council decision about using urban renewal as a funding backstop for the road improvements associated with the courthouse project. He was willing to revisit that issue if new facts were raised, but he had heard none. Mr. Kelly said while he would be tempted to support eliminating the STP-U funds as a funding source, the effect of that would be to require the use of twice as money from urban renewal. He was more inclined to "spread the pain" around funds. Mr. Pap6 agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Ortiz also agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Ms. Bettman said Eugene had not pursued other sources of funding, such as State funding. She thought that would be appropriate given the facility involved was a State highway. She thought there should be more opportunities to pursue State and federal funding. She was not supportive of using urban renewal if those other sources were not explored. Ms. Bettman recalled that any allocation of urban renewal funds over $200,000 was to be approved by the City Council. She asked if the discrete expenditure of funds for the road improvement project would be approved by the council. Mr. Kelly pointed out the council had already approved the expenditure. Ms. Bettman believed the council approved a resolution rather than a specific expenditure. She did not think the resolution superceded the urban renewal plan, which stipulated that staff was to seek council approval for such allocations. City Manager Taylor did not know the answer. Mr. Lidz said he would have to research the answer to the question. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comment that Eugene taxpayers would be paying to relocate a State facility, Ms. Solomon noted that $6.6 million of $7.6 million project was coming from a federal funding earmark and the Lane County Road Fund. The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 2005 Page 11 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall June 13, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mr. Poling called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He announced he would chair the meeting because Mayor Kitty Piercy was attending the United States Conference of Mayors in Chicago. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor asked if thc city manager could assure the council that staff was working to acquire the Nectar- Dillard Property. City Manager Taylor replied that the matter was on the list of items staff was working on, but acquiring the entire property was not currently the primary objective. He said that staff was working to create protection along the riparian area and linkages to the Ridgeline Trail. He said there were no resources to acquire the property in its entirety, but it was among the properties for which staff was exploring options with property owners to ensure access and protection. He urged patience while staff pursued the council's direction at its work session to work out an acceptable resolution for all parties. Ms. Taylor asked for information regarding consequences and problems involved with imminent domain, which had been previously used by the City. She expressed concern with recently reported comments by Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin that he wished to participate in the planning of the development, which sounded as if he assumed there would be a development on the property, and asked for further information on that issue. Continuing, Ms. Taylor reported that the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) was still searching for a new director. She said the agency had received considerable publicity recently and said the quote attributed to her regarding LRAPA having the fortitude to put public health first if Eugene dominated the board was not accurate. She said that Eugene representatives on the board did not vote as a bloc. Mr. Kelly related that he attended a recent University of Oregon function at which a graduate architecture class presented design ideas for City Hall replacements. He was struck by the variety of creative ideas that were put forward within the square footage and site constraints of the last study. He said the Mayor had expressed an interest in archiving the materials and making them available for public inspection. Mr. Pap~ thanked the entire community for its patience during the Interstate 105 (I-105) improvements project and the associated congestion and detours. He complimented Lane Community College (LCC) for the program it developed in conjunction with businesses and professions to identify different skill needs in MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Lane County and offer training to meet those needs. Ms. Bettman expressed regret that she would be unable to attend the opening of Fire Station 1 because of a scheduling conflict and hoped that future events could be scheduled so that all councilors could attend. Mr. Pryor said that the Human Services Commission had a planning meeting with the its Budget Planning Committee and a number of ideas were generated. He said the McKenzie Watershed Council meeting last week generated many questions regarding the council's passage of a resolution that called for protection of old growth and ancient forests. He said he had been invited to participate in a tour of new forest management projects in the Blue River area on July 7, 2005, and encouraged any members who were interested to take the tour. He related that the Pearl Buck Center contacted both Councilor Taylor and him regarding the Army/Navy Center at 13th Avenue and Chambers Street that might shortly be vacated. He said the center was very interested in that location and understood that the site might revert to the City when it became vacant. He raised the issue because the Pearl Buck Center did good work and was a great community citizen and it was worthwhile exploring possible opportunities. Mr. Poling asked if the center was interested in the old Army Reserve building or the Navy/Marine Center. Mr. Pryor said he was not certain which building was referred to. Mr. Poling indicated he had received a letter from Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green requesting assistance with the Afro-Academic, Cultural, Technological, and Scientific Olympics, also known as ACT-SO. He said that many talented people from the community would be participating in the event in Wisconsin and it would cost approximately $25,000 for the students and their chaperones to attend. He said that contributions from Lane County, Comcast and private donations had raised $9,000. He said his original intent was to make a motion to match Lane County's $5,000 contribution; but after discussions with councilors he determined that approach was not consistent with City policies, although there was great support for ACT-SO. He said that the City should develop a process for considering requests for financial assistance from organizations like ACT-SO. City Manager Taylor also thanked the community for its patience during road construction and noted the Lane Council of Governments' efforts to provide current information during projects and keep people updated on traffic closures and detours. He reported that LCC hosted periodic strategic conversations with community leaders on how LCC could be more involved in workforce development and other aspects of economic development. He commended President Mary Spilde and LCC for their efforts and encouraged future conversations. He said a recent meeting with University of Oregon President David Frohnmayer that he and Mayor Piercy attended included an overview of the campus plan and it was exciting to see what was in the long-range building program pending before the legislature. Ms. Taylor indicated that she and Mr. Pryor received letters from the Pearl Buck Center because their two current facilities were located in those wards. She asked if Whitbeck Boulevard was likely to be repaired by the City. City Manager Taylor replied that the City had fulfilled its commitment when the road was initially created and it did not have an ongoing obligation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Race Priority Issue Action Plan City Manager Taylor introduced the item, noting that Human Resource and Risk Services Executive Director Lauren Chouinard would present the proposal action plan for the council's priority issue on race. Mr. Chouinard introduced several members of the team who worked with him on development of the action plan. He said the task of developing a race priority issue action plan was daunting because the direction from the council did not include details. He said that members of the team represented a wide range of experiences in diversity work and their approach acknowledged that diversity work focused on action as well as words and was both personal, public and institutional. He noted that the council typically established policy and delegated implementation to City staff; the action plan represented work tasks for council members individually and collectively. He reviewed the action plan, which included short- and long-term outcomes, identified several initiatives that represented ongoing work in the community regarding race and race relations and set forth specific action steps to be taken. Mr. Poling called for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman commented that the council had a long discussion at its process session regarding goals. She said that the goals represented priorities for the City organization, which would go forth and implement them. She asked why the team took the approach that race priority was primarily a council issue. She said that education and outreach to the council was a good idea but one of the reasons the issue was raised by the council was the existence of unresolved organizational issues. She cited racial profiling as an example. She asked how the action plan would address those issues. Mr. Chouinard replied that the plan did not directly address those issues but rather illustrated the work that was going on; the council could identify more work to be undertaken or redirect staff efforts if it wished. He said that the nature of the council's discussion was interpreted to mean the council wished to have a discussion around race and race relations so it could make a statement to the community, which was why the plan reflected work at the council level. Mr. Pryor stated that the plan was a good start and established several important points regarding race, including increasing awareness and building and enhancing relationships. He said that it was not clear how to proceed beyond the plan in order to create substantive impact in the area of race relations, such as creating more participation and enfranchisement in the process. He noted that the outcomes did not include establishing systems whereby people from different cultures and backgrounds were actually a part of the process and wanted the plan to include outcomes regarding the creation of processes that allowed people to be involved in decisions that affected their lives. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged that the subject of race and diversity was difficult to discuss because often people became defensive. She liked the plan and felt that the council was responsible for setting the tone for the community and a conversation at the council level was important. She was concerned that the list of current initiatives described in the plan did not necessarily mean the City organization was committed to that particular issue. She said that there needed to be more than just conversations but was not certain how success was defined. Mr. Kelly appreciated the work on the action plan but said that race and race relations were very deep emotional issues. He liked the tasks for the Mayor and council as it was important for leadership to set the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 3 Work Session tone for the City at large, but agreed with Ms. Bettman that there needed to be work in the organization and in the community. He said he was not ready to approve the plan as presented and suggested staff take the feedback from council members in order to bring back a modified plan. Mr. Pap6 commented that the plan was a good start but was dismayed that there were only tasks for the Mayor and council; the plan should include organization tasks as well. He suggested that the Human Rights Commission could provide assistance in actualizing the council's goal. He suggested one way to measure success was to establish a goal for the organization that no incidents involving race issues occur over a specific period of time. Ms. Bettman offered specific recommendations for modifying the plan: · Outreach to communities of color to identify the issues and obtain feedback on how the issues should be addressed · Recruit more diverse candidates for board and commissions · Diversity training for all employees City Manager Taylor said that all City employees received mandatory diversity training, and specialized training was provided in those areas such as Library, Recreation and Cultural Services that involved providing services directly to the public, as well as work in meeting affirmative action goals. Ms. Bettman suggested that part of the action plan could be special diversity training for the council. She agreed with Ms. Ortiz that it was difficult to talk about race relations, particularly some of the high profile incidents that had occurred, but the community wanted the council to discuss them. She said that conversation had not occurred at the council level and should be included in the plan. Ms. Solomon arrived at 6:07 p.m. Mr. Kelly said he was pleased that the first item under short-term action steps in the plan was a facilitated dialogue on race at the council level, which spoke to many of the issues raised by councilors. He suggested two phases, with the first phase a facilitated training and the second phase a facilitated dialogue. He agreed with Mr. Papb's suggestion that the council work in tandem with the Human Rights Commis- sion, but cautioned the council to bear in m/nd the resource limitations of the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Taylor asked if the team that worked on the plan had reviewed a statement made by the council about seven years ago regarding respect for diversity. Mr. Chouinard replied that the team had used a council resolution from 2002 but could also review the earlier statement. Ms. Taylor said it appeared the council had already addressed the subject and from her point of view the City organization seemed really committed to diversity and there was no evidence of racial prejudice on the part of any councilor. She asked staff to identify the other race relations allies referred to in the plan. Human Rights Program Director Greg Rikhoff responded that allies included many community organiza- tions that were working on issues of race such as the Eugene City Club and interfaith ministries. He said the communities of color were more than just organizations associated with them. Mr. Chouinard added that the recommendations in plan discussed connecting with both leaders and non-leaders in the communities to provide a broader perspective. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor said that she did not like facilitated dialogues and was not certain it was necessary to hire a facilitator. City Manager Taylor related that he had attended a number of training sessions over the years and the privilege training he had attended was one of the most powerful. He encouraged council members to participate in the privilege training scheduled in 2005. He also encouraged them to participate in the study circles organized by the City Club that would commence in the fall. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments and said that the possibility of more resources for the Human Rights Commission could be explored during the next budgetary cycle or sooner in a supplemental budget. Mr. Kelly said that the meetings discussed under the mid- to long-term action steps section of the plan were vitally important and he was pleased that City Manager Taylor raised the subject of privilege training. He said that "white privilege" was something the community needed to discuss. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Kelly for his comments. City Manager Taylor recommended that a modified action plan be brought back to the council for action at its August 8, 2005, meeting. He asked if there were any items in the plan to which councilors objected. He noted that staff would revise the plan consistent with councilors' comments. Mr. Pap6 noted Mr. Kelly had related that the Human Rights Commission was in the process of develop- ing its plan. He asked if the council should act on its plan at an earlier date. Mr. Rikhoff said that the commission was struggling to develop its work plan while addressing a number of other substantive issues. He said the Human Rights Commission plan could be developed on a schedule that fit the council's timeline. City Manager Taylor suggested that work on the council's action plan could move forward with one of the action items being a more focused discussion about how the plan coincided with the commission's work. Mr. Kelly said there was no part of the plan that was wrong; councilors had identified some missing elements. He urged that the facilitated dialogue with the council be preceded by some type of training or background information to increase awareness. City Manager Taylor asked councilors to communicate any additional comments or suggestions to staff. He observed that while the focus of the plan was on the council and leadership of the community, it was important and powerful to speak out in the form of a resolution and the work that was done at the highest levels of the City. He thanked the council for making it a priority. C. WORK SESSION: Discussion to Consider Creation of Fund to Pay for Ballot Measure 37 Claims City Manager Taylor said that thc concept of a claims fund arose from an earlier council conversation and request for a work session. He introduced interim Planning and Development Director Susan Muir. Ms. Muir provided an update on Ballot Measure 37 claims. She said that thc City of Eugene had not MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 5 Work Session received a claim. Approximately 500 claims had been filed against the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). She said it was likely that another 500 claims had been filed across the state against local governments. She said the State had requested 17 staff and more than $1 million in additional revenue to administer its Ballot Measure 37 claim program, noting that the claims against the State totaled a request for $1.1 billion worth of compensation. She said that DLCD had issued 18 orders to date and 75 percent were waivers; the remaining claims were denied for incomplete applications. She said the only other community considering an effort similar to Eugene's was Lake Oswego, which had set aside $1 million to pay potential Ballot Measure 37 claims. City Attorney Glenn Klein reported that the House Land Use Committee was holding work sessions on a bill to address Ballot Measure 37 issues. He listed a number of provisions of the bill and noted that there was no funding mechanism, although there might be a separate compensation bill that would be limited to recapture of the back taxes on farm or forest use deferred taxes. He said that the last version of the compensation bill would divide compensation funds among local jurisdictions in the same proportion as current taxes were, with the funds to be used for Ballot Measure 37 claims. He said at this point it was uncertain whether any Ballot Measure 37 bill would emerge from the current legislative session. Referring to the agenda item, he said that the council had the charter authority to pursue creation of a tax or charge on increases in value related to government action, such as a rezone, in order to fund Ballot Measure 37 claims. He said that constraints on the council's actions related to Balllot Measure 5. Mr. Poling called for council questions and comments. Ms. Bettman said the issue for the City was how to draft any future land use regulation without creating a Ballot Measure 37 liability. She said she was looking for a vehicle to create a balance so that the City could avoid waiving or deferring regulations and retain the ability to protect resources, while being able to compensate property owners for a decrease in value. She pointed out that the funding mechanism being discussed was not a tax on development or making a profit on property, but rather a recapture of some of the value that the City or any government bestowed on a property owner when an action increased the value of the property. She asked staff to provide a definitive list of those situations where changes in value would be attributable to the actions of the City of Eugene, such as a rezone, change of use, change in the code to redefine permissible use, removal or waiver of a regulation or conditional use permit. Mr. Pap6 asked if the City could discriminate in the application of a tax or charge in an instance where an action in a particular zone would increase value but a property owner's use did not change and was not likely to change. Mr. Klein said that the City could differentiate when or how the charge was applied with the constraint of the equal protection clause that required similarly situated people to be treated in a similar fashion. He said the council could decide that the fee would be imposed on undeveloped property and not imposed when the value of developed property was increased, differentiate between classes of developed property or determine that when the value of developed property was increased, the fee would not be collected until such time as the use changed. He said the City could not impose a fee and allow individuals to request a waiver. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Klein said the same approach with respect to when the fee was collected could be applied to undeveloped property; the fee could be collected when the property was developed or ownership transferred. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for a thoughtful analysis of the issue. He emphasized the need to pursue a basic MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 6 Work Session funding mechanism for Ballot Measure 37 claims so that the City could continue to plan and regulate land use. He asked why Mr. Klein was highlighting a potential dichotomy between assessing vacant properties only, or vacant and developed property. Mr. Klein replied that some concepts discussed by the legislature related only to vacant property; the question was what approach the City preferred. Mr. Kelly said he preferred that the City consider a mechanism that addressed all property and assessing the property after the value was increased. He said he would support a motion to direct staff to further refine the concept. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of questions and comments. Ms. Bettman said that property would not be assessed until the owner reaped the benefit of City action through an increase in market value or ability to develop the property in a different way. She said the fee would collect funds to offset the cost of claims and waivers and to acquire property that needed to be regulated or protected in some way. She said the purpose of Ballot Measure 37 was to compensate land owners when regulation impacted them negatively; it was not about deregulation. But because municipali- ties did not have funds to pay claims, it eliminated the ability to regulate property. She said the City took action all the time to increase the value of property and needed to recapture a portion of that benefit. She asked staff to determine how to calculate a fair amount to recapture. Mr. Pap6 referred to Mr. Klein's earlier comments regarding funding through farm and forest deferrals and asked how the City could participate in those funds when that land was outside of the City. Mr. Klein described the current process for collecting property taxes in an unsegregated tax account, which the County then distributed to municipalities based on the amount of taxes that were imposed, rather than paid. He said that the mechanism for distributing compensation funds would be similar. Mr. Pap6 asked if there was a way to ensure that fees the City collected remained available for claims and did not go into the General Fund. Mr. Klein said that the action of future councils could not be restricted without a charter amendment. He said that an ordinance could be written in such a way that the council would need to specifically amend the ordinance before funds could be moved in the budget process. Ms. Taylor asked how an increase in value could be determined and recorded if no fee would be collected at the time of an action. Mr. Klein said that those were administrative issues that staff would develop in greater detail if the council provided direction to proceed. He desCribed a number of hypothetical situations and possible approaches. Ms. Taylor asked if owners of adjoining properties could file claims based on actions related to another piece of property. Mr. Klein said that question could be addressed in an ordinance but administratively it was impractical. Mr. Poling called for a third round of questions and comments. Ms. Bettman pointed out that determining the reduction in value under Ballot Measure 37 included many complicating factors that the City was required to consider. She said if the City was compelled to determine a reduction in value it should be able to utilize the same type of strategies to determine what the increase in value was. She asked if a motion was necessary to direct staff to move forward with the issue. City Manager Taylor replied that the subject was very complex as there were no models to use as a basis. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Staff would be performing trailblazing work that would displace other work and require legal and consulting assistance. He said that absent any Ballot Measure 37 claims, the question for the council was whether to use the limited staff resources to begin work on the issue. He did not recommend beginning the work until after the end of the legislative session and estimated that a product would be available to the council in the winter. Mr. Kelly said that the complexity of calculations related to a tax or charge on increases in value were a mirror of the complexity of calculations required for Ballot Measure 37 claims. He urged staff to begin work sooner rather than later because of a number of land use topics on the council's agenda that could raise Ballot Measure 37 issues. City Manager Taylor asked for a motion to direct staff to begin work on the creation of a Ballot Measure 37 claims fund. Mr. Pap6 said there was a subtle difference between Ballot Measure 37 claim calculation and a fee because the burden of proof in a Ballot Measure 37 claim was on the applicant and the burden of proof for imposition of fees would be on the City. Mr. Klein agreed that the burden of proof was on a Ballot Measure 37 applicant when the claim went to court to determine compensation although how that would be implemented was uncertain. He pointed out that the City was only concerned about determining a reduction in value if a claim was filed, whereas creation of a fee or charge would require the City to determine the increase in value of every piece of property that might have been affected. Mr. Pryor remarked that it seemed fair to ask property owners to pay if City action increased the value of their property if the law also required the City to compensate property owners when the value of their property was reduced. He wondered if pursuing that policy would-escalate the possibility of claims and indicated he was interested in exploring the implications of a fee or charge policy before the council acted. Mr. Poling commented that the issue of a fee or tax, like Ballot Measure 37, was very complicated and his initial reaction was negative. He concurred with Mr. Pryor's request for additional information before making a decision and would support a motion to direct staff to further analyze the issue and develop more details of the proposal. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a legal framework for, and identify the administrative costs and procedures to possibly imple- menting a "givings" tax/fee. Speaking to the motion, Ms. Bettman said she saw it as a way to implement any sort of planning direction that should be the City's policy because it was in the City's best interest. She said that the City would not have the funds to compensate property owners when it needed to regulate and therefore its "planning hands" would be tied because the Ballot Measure 37 issue would be raised every time there was a discussion about whether to implement a design standard, setback requirement or height limitation. She said without a compensation fund, the City would be in a completely deregulated environment. Mr. Klein clarified that the motion directed staff to develop an administrative analysis of the issue, including a range of options, rather than drafting an ordinance. City Manager Taylor added that the proposed policy was very complex and there was a limited budget to do the work; however, what the council requested would be done. Mr. Kelly agreed that more information was needed and he would support the motion. He emphasized the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 8 Work Session need to keep in mind the ultimate community goal of maintaining a level of community planning, environmental protection and reasonable development. He said that developing a revenue stream to pay Ballot Measure 37 claims would allow the City to be true to the law passed by Oregon voters and provide for community planning that a vast majority of the public wanted. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern with placing another burden on the City organization and Planning and Development Department following the burden placed on them last week with respect to Goal 5 issues. He asked if staff would need to be involved in the analysis. City Manager Taylor replied that it was necessary for staff on the operating level to participate in developing the administrative details of the proposal. Mr. Pap6 reiterated his concern with the burden on staff. He questioned whether it was advisable to be working on the issue before the legislature took action and would not support the motion. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Pap6 voting in opposition. Mr. Poling adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall June 13, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Pap6, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Council President George Poling called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed all those present. He explained that Mayor Kitty Piercy was attending the United States Conference of Mayors in Chicago, Illinois. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Councilor Poling reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. He observed that 12 people had signed up for the Public Forum. The councilors unanimously indicated their willingness to allow the Public Forum to run until all of those signed up had been given their three-minute opportunity to speak. Councilor Poling reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, alleged that there had been talk of a grant for Autzen Stadium at a meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. He averred the stadium was being granted $50,000 in Homeland Security money and that the money was to be spent on security cameras. He wondered if the natural area surrounding the stadium would be under surveillance and whether this was restricted information. He opposed having extra surveillance for the people who fish in the slough or utilize the BMX bicycle facility. He said this was also something to keep in mind for the new courthouse. He averred that when people know that the square near the courthouse had "all these hidden technologies looking for anything and everything someone might do wrong or think wrong" it would not be a draw. Mr. Vishanoff took exception to "Cannery Square," the proposed name for the area around the courthouse. He did not think there had been enough public input. He felt the public had mostly spoken about the natural areas in the vicinity and not the square itself. He said he had advocated for public tours of the cannery to look at adaptive reuse similar to that of the Fifth Street Market. He thought the cannery was a "primary historic resource" that had been bulldozed without any public discussion. He called the name "Cannery" a "slap in the face." Laurel Anderson, 953 West Broadway Street, thanked the Budget Committee for recommending funding for the police patrol in the Monroe Park neighborhood. She declared that it had made a difference alreadY. She was very pleased to see the bicycle patrol officers. Kyle Burns, 1390 West 10t~ Avenue, also identified himself as a Monroe Park neighbor and wanted to thank the Budget Committee and everyone present for all the work done towards getting the bicycle patrol MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session of the neighborhood. He stated that it had made a "big difference already." He appreciated the responses to all of the emails the neighbors had sent. He stressed that if there was any doubt the patrols were necessary, they should have been dismissed after the recent murder attempt by the river was thwarted by bicycle patrol officers. Mark Rabinowitz, PO Box 51222, wished to call attention to the multi-hazard mitigation report on the City Web site. He felt it was well-done but he had three areas of concern: 1) fireworks should not be sold to children during fire season; 2) several dams upstream from Eugene were not designed for the Cascadia subduction earthquake which made it important to make available a map of potential inundation areas; and 3) climate change and peak oil. He underscored that the world was at peak oil production. He recommended that subsidies for "big box" stores be stopped and that plans for new freeways be ended. He also recommended supporting local business instead of corporations such as Whole Foods and Triad Corporation, which were both based in Texas. He averred that the large sum of money investors proposed to spend for a power facility to be constructed near Coburg would be better spent on building solar panel factories, because that would guarantee some renewable energy when the oil was gone. He suggested that plans for parking garages next to transit facilities be cancelled. He predicted that the country would have to deal with economic crises that would precede the energy and food crises of peak oil. He did not think the rhetoric of sustainability would help make things work when the nation was in chaos. Elizabeth Twombly, 5015 Nectar Way, submitted her testimony in writing. She thanked the councilors for the work they had done on behalf of the East Fork Amazon Headwaters property. She wished to remind councilors that support for the purchase of land in the area went far beyond the immediate neighbors. She stated that the East Fork Amazon preservation group had over 150 people on its email list and had been endorsed by some neighborhood groups in Eugene as well as the Native Plant Society, the Audubon Society, and Citizens for Public Accountability. Ms. Twombly believed that the developers' plan to build over 100 houses on the property was unrealistic. She reminded those present that developer Joe Green had bought the property in 2004 for $325,000 and now wanted $600,000 from the City for it. Because the appraisal of the property indicated it was only worth $435,000, the City was unable to purchase it at that price. She said the appraisal was based on an expectation that only seven houses could actually be constructed on the property because of the terrain. She urged councilors and staff to continue working toward creating a plan to acquire the property at a reasonable price. Lisa Warnes, 5020 Nectar Way, thanked the council and staff for the work they had been doing on the proposed acquisition of the East Fork Amazon Headwaters. She felt it unfortunate that time had run out in the work session of the previous week and that a motion had not been voted on. She believed she could work with Councilor Taylor to draft a motion that would be acceptable to most of the council. She thought the planned unit development (PUD) process would likely "change many things and open up new options." She opined that developer Joe Green did not have a "basis in reality" because he still thought he could build 100 homes on that site. She said after the work session it seemed there was a renewed energy for acquiring the stream corridor, a ten-acre property. She was curious as to what the reasoning was behind giving $150,000 for a piece of property that would be protected anyway. She had observed, when looking at plans in a meeting with Joe Green, that the plans included 50-foot setbacks from the stream corridor. Jessica Tennat, 1131 Monroe Street, explained that she was the owner of the Monroe Street Caf~ and had owned it for 16 months. She wished to respond to neighbors who testified at the previous meeting. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session had applied for a change of use to change the establishment from a market to a deli when she took over the cafd. She related that she invested $20,000 in work to make the building a compliant for operation as a deli, working with Mike McKerrow and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC), and she currently had a minor posting due to some of the live music. She thought having music at the site was still complying with the City Code. She stated that she was working with Mr. McKerrow to provide the numbers for alcohol and food sales and had documentation that the caf~ sold twice the amount in food than in alcohol. In response to complaints regarding the serving of alcohol in front of the building, she had chosen to ask her customers not to imbibe there. She underscored that the caf~ closed at 10 p.m. and any music that was playing would have ceased by then. Regarding parking, she said she had two agreements which netted 12 parking spaces. She related that she had participated in some mediation with neighbors of the caf~ and gave them her cell phone number, but no one had called her. Debbie Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, wanted to comment on the 5:4 vote on the Goal 5 Inventory in Eugene. She asked the councilors if they had read Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660.023.110(4) and if they knew the specifics of the OAR. She asked if the councilors had read a Sensitive Species List, provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), compiled more recently than the year 2000. She wondered if any councilors had told a property-owner constituent that supporting the Goal 5 inventory process was a way to keep a neighbor from building on adjacent property. She asked if any councilors knew the council had passed an ordinance required by the Goal 5 process that listed the significant resource sites in the City limits and the urban transition (UT) area. She suggested the councilors could gain "bonus points" if they knew the year or the date of the cutoff to file an appeal. Ms. Jeffries answered some of the questions. She stated that the OAR she cited was the Wildlife Habitat Goal 5 Resource and subsection (4) was the discussion of the Safe Harbor and what the local government options are. Regarding her second question, she stressed that the list did not exist and the ODFW had no money to create one. Rather, she said, the most recent list had been compiled in 1997. She stated that the City passed its ordinance requiring the Goal 5 process in 2003 and the UT version had been passed some time later. As for the time for an appeal, she said it had long passed. She indicated that she knew that because she had appealed the inventory to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and she declared the council should have done the same if it did not like the Safe Harbor method that was passed. She remarked that she was not an attorney or a land planner, but she did know how to use the internet, think, and ask questions. She asked why the council did not do the same thing instead of wasting "everyone's time and money." Ms. Jeffries stressed that the Goal 5 process had been a multiple years in duration and had used tens of thousands of public and private dollars as well as hundreds of hours of government staff and private citizens' time. She said the council's "uninformed conduct" on a vote impacting the Goal 5 periodic review process had taken "all of ten minutes" and had ignored the very staff that spent years developing it. She averred this continued to "reinforce the unpredictable and unprofessional reputation" of the City as a whole. In conclusion, she called the Mayor's tie-breaking vote "an embarrassment," not because her opinion differed with the Mayor's but because she allegedly ignored the community and staff deliberation process. She recalled that the Mayor had run for office under the slogan "the mayor for all Eugene" and asked that she "start acting that way." Kevin Barber, 3152 Raleighwood Avenue, Springfield, read a letter from Vincent Fiani, submitted to the Monroe Street Caf6, which lauded the establishment for its food, drink, and atmosphere. Mr. Fiani indicated he was putting his "good word on the line" as a former Marine in support of the caf& He did not think there was any lewd or inappropriate behavior nor did he believe the noise level of music was MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session excessive. He suggested that taking away the OLCC license would cripple the ability for the caf6's owner to make a living. Mr. Barber, speaking on his own behalf, stressed that sound levels and the activity in the front and in the back were continually monitored. He felt they were very effective in conveying to the clientele the importance of consideration for the neighbors. He said some sound-proofing improvements were being conducted to assist in mitigating the neighbors' concerns. Derrik Vuylsteke, 1175 Jackson Street, an employee of the Monroe Street Caf6, stated that he closed the caf6 at night. He said part of his job was to terminate the music. He underscored that the caf6 did not allow drum kits or loud amplification and that the sound check was tested inside and outside of the premises to ensure the decibel level did not exceed the decibel level of traffic. He related that the caf6 participated in the Friday Art Walk and this month featured 30 artworks submitted by employees and patrons of the caf& He shared that the caf6' s open microphone was for everyone, including children. He was in charge of monitoring sound levels after 10 p.m. and had asked excessively loud customers to leave. He reiterated that when he arrived no more food or alcohol was served and maintained that everything was "quiet as a church mouse" by 10:30 p.m. Rosie Gallego, 1735 West 10th Avenue, explained that she had been an employee of the Cornucopia Market but quit because business had dropped and checks to employees had begun to bounce. She stated that she currently worked for the Monroe Street Caf6. She observed that since the change of ownership more families came to the caf& She worked regular shifts at the counter and was the head chef. She said the caf6 recently hired another cook because of an increase in food business. She also pointed out that the caf6 was supporting several charitable endeavors in the community as well. Greg Lerigo, 2224 Lillian Street, quipped that he was ready to go to the Monroe Street Caf~ after hearing the testimony on its behalf. He was present to represent the performing and visual arts in the community. He wished to thank the councilors for voting in support of Councilor Kelly's motion and for the compromise that had been reached through Councilor Papb to support the Cultural Services Division that would allow the division to make plans to better utilize the Hult Center for the Performing Arts and the resources in the community. He thought the City was close to a private/public consortium and the funding was the first step. He hoped the council would continue to support the Budget Committee recommendation for the Cultural Services Division funding. Carol Seaton, 1150 West 15t~ Avenue, Apt. 104, shared Mr. Rabinowitz's concerns regarding peak oil production. She hoped the City would work to keep community markets as driving became more difficult due to the scarcity of oil. She advocated for planning for the transportation issues that would be presented by the lack of oil by providing adequate facilities for easy pedestrian travel. She suggested that planners look for "walking paths" as they were reviewing designs. She wanted people to start looking toward the future and start thinking about bicycle paths, public transit, and pedestrian amenities. Councilor Poling closed the Public Forum. Councilor Bettman stated, in response to Ms. Jeffries' comments, she agreed there had been a phenomenal waste of time and money in the Goal 5 process, but it was due to a 2004 decision by the council to throw out the inventory staff had worked on for "years and years" and take the Safe Harbor approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session Councilor Bettman said the only question in regard to the Monroe Street Caf6 issue was whether or not it was functioning as a market/caf6 or a tavern. She underscored that the venue for that discussion was not the City Council. Councilor Kelly expressed appreciation for those who thanked the council for the action regarding bicycle patrols. He also appreciated Ms. Tenat's testimony, after having heard from the unhappy neighbors of the Monroe Street Caf& He added that it seemed that changes were underway to work with the neighbors. Regarding Ms. Seaton's testimony, Councilor Kelly said he was "90 percent sure" that the land use code adopted in 2001 had eliminated long cul-de-sacs and now required pedestrian egress. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone who came. She felt the comments regarding peak oil were very important. She pointed out the importance of purchasing the land at the Amazon Headwaters because it was an area that one could take a bus to. She hoped the City would purchase the entire parcel and not just the stream corridor, though she averred the latter would be "better than nothing." She did not think any houses should be built on the property. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - April 18, 2005, Process Session - April 19, 2005, Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 27, 2005, Work Session May 9, 2005, Work Session May 9, 2005, City Council Meeting May 11, 2005, Work Session May 18, 2005, Work Session May 23, 2005, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of May 12, May 26, 2005 D. Adoption of Resolution 4839 Authorizing An Exception to the Public Information Funding Limitations of the Limited Neighborhood Recognition Policy for Organizations in the River Road and Santa Clara Areas Established by Resolution No. 4705 for the Fiscal Year 2005/06 Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Pap6 pulled Items C and D. Councilor Kelly stated that he had previously submitted minutes corrections. Councilor Poling deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman indicated she had also submitted minutes corrections electronically. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session Councilor Poling deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of items C and D passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pap6 explained that he was bringing to the council a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant that had been before the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) twice and failed with a 2:1 vote in order to gain approval for the application. He asked Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department Kurt Yeiter to be available to present the issue and answer questions. Councilor Pap6, with a second from Councilor Solomon, moved to approve the Transportation Growth Management grant application. Mr. Yeiter explained that this transportation growth management code assistance was different from a typical grant provided for site-specific planning. He said it was for technical assistance only; the State contracted with two firms that would, on a first-come, first-serve basis, be designated to try to implement "smart growth" policies. He related that the State's intent was to improve livability and foster compact, pedestrian, bicycle transit friendly development and integrate land use and transportation in the planning. He listed some of the concepts it included, as follows: · Less off-street parking · Mixed residential and commercial use zoning · Building orientation to the street · Quality building design standards · Compatibility and transition between uses and zoning districts · Flexible development standards that provide incentives for infill and redevelopment Mr. Yeiter underscored that no cash match was required. He stated that the product would be a review of City standards, recommendations, and draft code language for the councilors, Planning Commission, and staff to review. He stressed that the grant included no requirement to adopt anything. Nor did he believe, as one councilor suggested, that it would only reduce the number of regulations the City would have. He thought it possible that there could be some reductions, but did not anticipate it. Rather, he said they would be targeting results of the built environment. He thought this process could offer some new regulations and procedures for council consideration. Councilor Bettman understood that the City of Springfield had also applied for a TGM grant to audit its code. Mr. Yeiter replied that he was unaware of that. Councilor Bettman asked if this was a standard State grant that was going to be provided to municipalities to audit codes. Mr. Yeiter affirmed this. Councilor Bettman said she lifted the language 'removing obstacles to mixed-use development' from the staff summary and this had been her focus. She thought the new summary held a different focus. She believed the grant application to be premature. She felt the policy discussion had to come before the technical analysis and the council had not yet had its discussion regarding the difference between nodal and mixed-use development. She could think of 10 to 15 issues that the council felt was important and staff had responded that the City did not have the resources to pursue opportunity siting or a specific alternative path. She wished the council would compete for the money in order to accomplish this sort of thing instead of "prematurely" looking at the City Code to see how deregulation could occur to make MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session mixed-use and infill "easier for the developer." She wanted the council to determine what "smart growth" looked like and what, out of the State "Smart Growth" principles, should apply in the community before having staff pursue potential obstacles to the principles. Councilor Bettman asked, regarding one of the bullet points in the agenda item summary (AIS), if 'public facilities in place before development begins' meant that the recommendation was that the City provide sewers and roads to greenfields before development. Mr. Yeiter replied that the City's growth management policy confirms that nodal development or mixed-use centers should be given a higher priority for where services would be provided. He said, in that regard, it was consistent. Councilor Kelly asked how focused the grant application was. Referring to language on AIS page 132, he asked if this language meant the City wanted what was listed in the problem statement to be solved. Mr. Yeiter responded that the AIS included draft language. He stated that when the council tabled the matter the first time there was an implication that the grant application would go back to the CCIGR. He reiterated that the grant did not have a formal application but rather needed a letter with a problem statement and he had tried to draft such a letter. He did not know how long this grant would be offered for or how broad of a review they might have. He speculated that it could be broad or more focused. Councilor Kelly said the determinant for him was how broadly or narrowly the letter was cast. He felt what he had just heard was that there was not yet a definition of how focused the City would ask the grant to be. He averred this would make it impossible for him to support it. Councilor Pap6 observed that some debate had transpired about whether the discussion was premature. He suggested that the City Council had growth management policies and they were on display in the McNutt Room. He pointed out that the next paragraph after the one cited by Councilor Kelly on AIS page 132 included the phrase 'products would include an audit of the land use code and development requirements, list of perceived shortcomings/unintended effects of the standards, recommendations for alternative standards, and, if possible, draft code or standards suitable for adoption.' He noted there had been discussion at the earlier meeting about taking away restrictions and asked if that was all that would happen with this. Mr. Yeiter responded that he fully expected that the team would recommend standards, in addition to what was in the present code and would likely recommend different procedures that would help the City attain better results. Councilor Pap6 surmised that the team was a set of"fresh eyes looking to improve upon what we want in the community." Councilor Papb asked if the council could help to focus where the audit team would be placing its attention. Mr. Yeiter affirmed this. Councilor Pap6 believed the grant would benefit the community and the community was passing up an opportunity. Councilor Solomon agreed with the characterization of the grant as an opportunity. She thought the audit could help the council have a focused, effective conversation about mixed-use. She underscored that the City needed to be willing to change things for the better and indicated she would support applying for the grant. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Yeiter explained the grant would result in $50,000 in technical expertise and the City need not match resources with the State. Councilor Bettman said just because the resource was available, if the City could not make good use of it, the taxpayers would still have to pay for it. She commented that the council had questioned the grant at the last meeting and what troubled her was that the grant seemed just as non-specific as it had at the first City Council meeting at which it had been reviewed. She said all of the typical code changes for smart development were from the State code. She averred it was non-specific to what the City of Eugene was pursuing. Councilor Bettman felt that if the council had a better idea of what the grant sought, she might be more inclined to support it. She noted that the council had processed "dozens and dozens and dozens" of rollbacks to the City Code and it was "certainly not off limits." She expressed concern that the code would become obsolete if this continued. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Yeiter said the present meeting offered the opportunity for the council to have input into what specifically would be looked at in the code. Councilor Bettman replied that the council could not provide such input until it had its discussion on mixed-use and infill. Councilor Kelly expressed disappointment that the application deadline was Wednesday and there was not a completed letter of application in front of the council. He wished to amend Councilor Pap6's motion. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to state in the letter that the grant shall be for the specific purpose of studying possible alternate path mechanisms. Councilor Bettman indicated her support for the amendment. She understood then that auditors would come and look at the growth management policies and the code and provide options for how the City could implement an alternate path. Councilor Bettman said one issue with the alternative path, which started from the initial code update, was that if a developer had a site and wanted to do something that fulfilled the growth management policies, fulfilled the intent and purpose of the code language, and worked with adjacent neighbors to come up with a proposal that was amenable to everyone, there should be a way to satisfy the intent without having to be prescriptive in every case. She encouraged staff to look at some of that legislative intent because there had been a number of discussions before it had been placed on the work plan. Councilor Poling asked if the amendment would disqualify the City of Eugene from the grant. Mr. Yeiter did not think so. He added that the application was left broad in order to provide latitude for the team to conduct a triage of the full code and focus on where they thought the problems lay. Councilor Pap6 supported having further discussion of alternative procedures. He said he would appreciate having someone with expertise in those areas to provide ideas to formulate further policy discussion to refine. He could not support the amendment because it was "too limiting." Councilor Bettman said, given that the grant was for only $50,000 and the auditors could not do everything, the amendment served to narrow the focus. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Kelly, and Taylor voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor, and Pap6 voting in opposition. The amendment died. Roll call vote; the main motion passed 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in opposition. Councilor Bettman commented that the discussion had been unnecessary. She averred there was a way to avoid this kind of contention on an issue. She thought the grant could have been configured in such a way as to have majority support of the council. She strongly encouraged the City Manager to work more diligently to put things in front of the council that had broader support. City Manager Taylor responded that staff did try to do just that. City Attorney Klein reminded the council that it needed to vote to ratify the CCIGR actions. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to ratify the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations actions of May 12, and May 26, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Consent Calendar Item D, Councilor Pap6 indicated he thought this had been addressed in the budget process. City Manager Taylor explained that this item anticipated that the budget recommendations from the Budget Committee would be adopted when the action was taken. He noted the provision to allow the same types of mailings for the River Road/Santa Clara neighborhood association as the City did for other neighborhood associations. Councilor Pap6 expressed disappointment that the Lane County Board of Commissioners were not providing help in this, given that some of the residents in the River Road area were its constituents. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item D passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4840 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004, and Ending June 30, 2005 City Manager Taylor said Kitty Murdoch, Budget Manager for the Finance Division of Central Services, would be available to answer questions. Council President Poling opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present who wished to speak, he closed the public hearing and asked for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Bettman wished to clarify, regarding AIS page 250, that the note at the bottom of the page marked (a) should say 'fees' and not 'rates.' Councilor Kelly asked what was meant by 'reimbursable overtime revenue' for the Eugene Police Department (EPD). Police Chief Bob Lehner replied it meant that the staff time was completely reimbursable from an outside source. He explained that two-thirds of the reimbursable overtime revenues MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session received came from the University of Oregon, which often utilized City Police services for its events. He said the officers were paid through the City payroll and the City billed the hiring entity. Councilor Kelly asked, regarding the risk fund listed on AIS page 254, what the transfer of $1 million was from the balance available to the budget for Central Services Department and how that "jived" with the transfer six months earlier of $1.8 million out of the General Fund and into the Risk Fund to make its balance available in better shape. Ms. Murdoch responded that the balance available account was the flexibility for spending in the fund. She said the reason to have such a balance was to be prepared for unforeseen costs. She explained that the adjustment earlier in the year that he referred to did increase the balance available in that fund because the City had expected at that time to have high future liability costs, but staff was unsure of the amount. In fact, she said the actuary had provided an estimate that had increased the claims payable account and the City needed to use the money requested to be moved from Balance Available in this supplemental budget item to "book into" claims payable expense for FY05. Councilor Kelly expressed concern that this would turn into an "overly gyrating fund situation." He said it would not surprise him to see in the Supplemental Budget (SB) #1 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 that yet another transfer from the General Fund would be required. He understood that risk costs were innately unpredictable, but he hoped the City could begin to develop a strategy to avoid such frequent transfers back and forth. Councilor Pap~ asked if the City was $2.8 million off in its estimates for the risk fund at the start of the year. Ms. Murdoch replied that the claims payable increased $1.7 million more than the actuary's previous estimate. In response to another question from Councilor Pap~, Ms. Murdoch clarified that the $1.445 million listed on page 252 was not City money but rather was money the City collected for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). Councilor Pap~ asked if they could use the money for either capital or expenditures. Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey stated that it was operating funding and represented additional revenues that came in since the rate adjustment for FY05 had occurred. He underscored that it was not a windfall to the MWMC, but a planned increase that was approved after the adoption of the FY05 Budget. Councilor Poling said as a member of the MWMC he would look into whether this amount was included in the MWMC budget. Councilor Pap6 asked what the $184,000 going into the Airport Fund represented. Mr. Corey replied it represented that during the course of the fiscal year the parking concession agreement had been rewritten and had resulted in additional revenues that had to be recognized and appropriated in the FY05 budget. Councilor Pap6 observed that the money was listed as going into Public Works. Mr. Corey responded that the airport was part of the Public Works Department and the money was generally appropriated to equipment purchases and other operating expenses associated with the parallel runway. Councilor Bettman asked if the capitalization for the original airport parking lots was through airport dedicated funds. Mr. Corey affirmed that it was. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 4840 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2004, and ending June 30, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4841 Electing to Receive State Revenue Sharing Funds Pursuant to Section 221.770 of Oregon Revised Statutes; Resolution 4842 Certifying that the City of Eugene Provides the Municipal Services Required by Oregon Revised Statutes Section 221.760; and Resolution 4843 Adopting the Budget, Making Appropriations, Determining, Levying and Categorizing the Annual Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and Ending June 30, 2006 City Manager Taylor remarked that the FY06 Budget was built on the focus and discipline of the Budget Committee and the City Council over several years. He noted that within the last few years the committee had to address million dollar reductions, but this year he was happy to recommend a budget that maintained the current level of services, focused on the City Council priorities, and met the needs of the community. He drew the council's attention to the specific request for $133,000 to add to the contract with the County for animal control. He noted one other small change to the River Road/Santa Clara neighborhood newsletter budget, reflecting the Budget Committee action regarding the newsletter program. Council President Poling opened the public hearing. Deanna Diehl, 1343 Taft Street, spoke on behalf of the Lane Regional Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA). She said while she was not familiar with the specifics of the budget, she wanted to call out that a lack of funding would cause a few people to lose jobs. She commented that she had ridden with the LCARA officers, adding that the councilors would be welcome to do so. She related that one section of the LCARA facility was cordoned off from the public as it contained dangerous dogs or dogs that had been seized for a court case. She said some of the animals were "pretty scary" and it was beneficial to the public to have animal control authorities to manage them. She asked on behalf of the LCARA employees and the animals that the City of Eugene continue to contribute funds to LCARA. She also wished to bring up a new puppy store on Highway 99. She asked if placement of advertisements for the store in the median was legal. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, called "smart growth" a budget issue and a high taxes issue. He mentioned several articles he wanted the councilors to "Google" on the Web. He said the articles talked about "smart growth" and how it "facilitates poor development projects." He averred it was a "packaging exercise." He said one article from CNN on "smart growth" opined that it was like a religion with gurus and it explained how it involved sports stadiums and how they often did not get built. He felt it was an important issue. Mr. Vishanoff alleged that money was allocated to the marketing of"smart growth" and questioned the need for this. He suggested that information about "smart growth" should be disseminated through the newspaper and the information should include property rights and eminent domain issues and should ask the public to provide input. He averred eminent domain was sometimes used for privatization. He opined that "smart growth" could be racist because it promoted gentrification. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Eric Gran, 868 West l0th Avenue, favored a budget that would include Councilor Bettman's proposal for community policing around the urban core parks. He said neighbors around the parks were in favor of it because it was policing based on foot and bicycle patrols. He averred those sorts of patrols work because they allowed neighborhoods to form partnerships with police. He did not believe that the police were the only answer to the problems they were facing, but they were a critical component to resolution of them. He noted that his neighborhood had been working with social service agencies as well. He shared that bicycle patrols had been traversing his neighborhood park and had already made a positive difference. He said people cheered the officers as they rode by and had begun referring to them by their first names. He felt this spoke to the effectiveness of the program. He added that, in addition to the murder prevented by such a patrol by the Rose Garden, there had been several arrests in other parks over the last few weeks. There being no other requests to speak, Council President Poling closed the public hearing and asked for questions and comments from the City Council. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Murdoch stated that the funding for the EPD foot and bicycle patrols was included in the budget but the recommendation on the LCARA funding would have to be made through an amendment to Exhibit A in the AIS. She noted that the AIS included a suggested motion for such an amendment. Councilor Bettman thanked those who testified, especially those who expressed appreciation for the work of the Budget Committee. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 4841 electing to receive State Revenue Sharing Funds pursuant to Section 221.770 of Oregon Revised Statutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 4842 certifying that the City of Eugene provides the municipal services required by Oregon Revised Statutes Section 221.760. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 4843 adopting the Budget, making appropriations, determining, levying and categorizing the annual Ad Valorem Tax Levy for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the resolution to increase expenditure authority in the Central Services Department by $133,000 to increase the animal control contract with Lane County and decrease the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall by $133,000 and to decrease expenditure authority in the Central Services Department for River Road/Santa Clara Transition Services by $5,650 and increase expenditure in the Planning and Development Department by $5,650 to increase the newsletter budget to out-of-city residents in the River Road/Santa Clara neighborhoods. Councilor Pap~ asked if the $133,000 would be "gone" or if it would be replenished by licensing fees. City Manager Taylor responded that it was thought that over a three- to five-year period license fees MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session would be able to maintain this level of service. He said staff had not dealt with specifics on whether the "bridge funding" would be reimbursed should sufficient funds beyond the level of service be collected. Councilor Pap6 indicated he would not vote against the amendment. However, he wished to reiterate that most counties handled 100 percent of the funding for animal control. He thought this made sense given that Eugene, Springfield, Cottage Grove, and so on, were all part of Lane County and paid taxes to the County. He averred the County should take responsibility for animal regulation. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the FY06 budget by taking $50,000 from the General Fund's reserve for revenue shortfall and adding that same amount to the Central Services Department's expenditure authority in the General Fund for the purpose of Mayor Piercy's Sustainable Economic Development Task Force. The funds will be placed in the FY06 budget; however, funds not expended by the end of FY06 will be carded forward into the FY07 budget. Councilor Bettman supported the amendment. She hoped one of the tasks the committee would undertake would be to inventory what the City was already accomplishing in terms of economic development, identify the gaps, and look at the strategies that "provide the highest public benefit in leveraging benefits." Councilor Pap6 indicated his support, adding that he hoped it would add to the momentum created by the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development from the previous year. He asked where any money left over would be placed. City Manager Taylor explained that the task force was anticipated to take up to 18 months and so the funding would be carried forward to support its work. Councilor Poling added his support to the amendment. He conveyed his hope that the Mayor's ability to draw a diverse cross-section of people would be reflected in the work of the task force. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the FY06 budget by taking $36,000 from the General Fund's reserve for revenue shortfall and increasing the Library, Recreation and Cultural Services Department's expenditure authority in the General Fund by the same amount in order to increase the field maintenance contract with Kidsports from $42,000 to a total of $78,000. Councilor Solomon explained that the Kidsports/City of Eugene partnership had been a very successful one. She said most cities across the country funded such activities through parks and recreation districts, but the City of Eugene did not have that luxury. Since the City was not taking this role, Kidsports had taken it on. She stated that while an increasing number of young people participated in the program, the amount of the allocation from the City had remained the same. She underscored that the request only represented a three-percent increase per year over the life of the agreement. Councilor Bettman opposed the amendment for a number of reasons. She said none of the reasons had to do with how great the program was. She called it a great program among many great programs in the City that were not receiving City funds. She averred that Kidsports Executive Director and former Mayor Jim Torrey had contacted the council about this request "well before" Budget Committee deliberations. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session related that she had discussed this with Mr. Torrey via email. She believed there were many young people who were unable to participate in sports or who did not have an interest in participating whose interests were not provided allocations. She thought there were other deserving entities and would prefer to allow all of them to compete equally for the money. Councilor Pap6 called Kidsports a wonderful organization and a value to the community. He called this request a "heck of a way to run a railroad" because Kidsports had known of its need for an increase for "a while." He asked Executive Director for the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department (LRCS) Angel Jones to speak to the timing of the request. Ms. Jones explained that the request had not been included in the LRCS budget because the department was operating under a status quo budget and so did not submit requests for additional service improvements. She did not know why the request had not surfaced during budget discussions. She said Kidsports requested an increase in funding every year, as did other organizations. Councilor Papfi asked if Kidsports was taking on as much or more in maintenance and were they doing less with more. Ms. Jones responded that the role of Kidsports had changed over the last few years because there were now a number of entities that provided athletic opportunities to young people. She thought the high performers, the true athletes, went into those other programs, leaving Kidsports with core recreations programs for those who did not have the skills and/or the resources to go to the more elite programs. She said the level of maintenance that Kidsports had taken on remained the same over the years, but the participation level in Kidsports had increased. Councilor Pryor asked if this was a one-time funding allocation or if it was intended to be ongoing. Councilor Solomon replied that it was for an ongoing increase. Councilor Pryor remarked that it was always difficult to address something brought up at the last minute. However, he averred that Kidsports was a very important program that had been around for a long time. He underscored that the program was in "desperate financial condition." He stressed that there were programs for the "sports superstars" but there were not many opportunities for the less able kids, the kids who were not as competitive, and the kids who just wanted to play. He said, in this instance, he was inclined to reluctantly support the amendment because Kidsports was a "great program." Councilor Ortiz agreed with concerns about the proposal coming at the "eleventh hour." But she had utilized the Kidsports program and had benefited from its scholarships. She indicated that she would be more likely to "100 percent support" the amendment if it was for a one-time allocation. Councilor Ortiz offered a friendly amendment to specify that this would be a one-time allocation. The maker and second of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Kelly said he was a "long way" from being able to support the amendment. He thought it important to look at the panoply of requests and determine which ones deserved funding. He was "dumbfounded" that the proposal had not been brought to the Budget Committee. He agreed that it was an important program in tough financial straits, but he averred one could say this about many youth- oriented programs in the comtnunity. Councilor Taylor opposed the amendment. She cited a number of items that were not being funded or funded adequately, such as the Sister Cities Program and various arts programs. She wished to give MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session money to Community Television, which provided opportunities for youth as well, but was not able to do SO. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Jones said she received requests for funding from various arts organizations, one of which did receive some money through the budget process, and the YMCA, among others. Councilor Bettman noted that Arts Umbrella did not receive funding though she considered it a worthy endeavor as it provided many scholarships and taught music to young people. She cited the Whiteaker School which contained a school for autistic children and did not have air conditioning, though it taught through the summer. She opined that Kidsports was not a "faltering program" and that there was a certain inequity and unfairness in bringing this amendment forward at this point. She asked how the citizen Budget Committee members would feel knowing that they did not have an opportunity to present one "worthy entity" or another. She felt that "just because the executive director of the program happened to be well-connected" he was able to circumvent the process. Councilor Solomon could not argue with any councilors about the process. She wished to point out that she did not receive any emails from Mr. Torrey until nearly the end of the budget process and she was not approached with a figure until after the process was over. She noted that there was unanimous agreement that the program was important and that it had been in the community for a long time, provided memorable experiences, and had taught skills to the City's youth. She stressed that Kidsports was in a big transition period. She averred the program had to repackage itself and had a "great core of folks" taking a hard look at the organization to enable it to move forward. She felt the City's partnership in the process was very important. She pointed out that scholarships were a large part of the Kidsports program and that many of those children receiving such scholarships lived in her ward. Councilor Poling observed that the City had been giving $42,000 for years. He underscored that costs had increased over the years and, with the friendly amendment, the additional $36,000 was a one-time expenditure. He thought it was a worthwhile investment and was inclined to support it primarily because of the "overall good" that Kidsports did throughout the community. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Kelly, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Kelly conveyed his displeasure with the vote. He hoped the supporters of the amendment would be able to explain to the arts programs why they did not receive a share of the funding. Councilor Pap6 expressed appreciation for the deliberation of the Budget Committee. He called it a "tough one." He felt steps were being taken to improve public safety with the funding to reinstitute full services of Fire Station #9 and funding for EPD foot and bicycle patrols. He acknowledged that Police Chief Lehner was working on a business plan for the EPD and that this might take some resources to accomplish. He predicted that more tough decisions for the community lay down the road. Noting that no one else wished to comment, Councilor Poling called for the vote. Roll call vote; the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 9:27 p.m. Councilor Poling convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session Councilor Bettman left the meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 1035 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene Adopting the Budget, Making Appropriations, and Declaring the Amount of Tax to be Received for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and Ending June 30, 2006 City Manager Taylor stated that staff supported the Urban Renewal Agency budget as recommended by the Budget Committee. Council President Poling opened the public hearing. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, said he was critical of urban renewal. He alleged that he did not have access to the information about the budget and newspapers were not writing about urban renewal because it sounded "boring." He felt this was why it affected the community in such a negative way. He averred that urban renewal was tied to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) which, he said, would take out trees on Franklin Boulevard. He commented that air pollution was bad and that Franklin Boulevard already had aesthetic and pedestrian-access problems. He thought some of the urban renewal money could mitigate the project by "skipping" removal of the median and this could save lives. Mr. Vishanoff related that he had seen designs for a "sculptural" pedestrian overpass by the new courthouse. He thought putting expensive crossings near the courthouse hurt the rest of the community. He felt more crossings could be built if less money was spent on building an artistic-looking crossing at that location. He said this was why the discussions about urban renewal should be very public and in detail. He suggested that the City go directly to the public for input. He commented that the problem with urban renewal was that it was prone to "Goldschmidt-related maneuvering" and there had already been "funny sports-related funding" in the council meeting. Council President Poling closed the public hearing. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 1035 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene adopting the Budget, making appropriations, and declaring the amount of tax to be received for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Ms. Murdoch explained that funding for the Cultural Services Comprehensive Plan split between the Downtown Urban Renewal District and the Riverfront Urban Renewal District had not been even because it was felt that the downtown district would reap more of the benefits. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Poling closed the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting of the City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 16 Regular Session 6. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Improvements Consisting of Pavement, Curbs and Gutters, Sidewalks, Median, Street Lights, Traffic Signal, Street Trees, Wastewater, and Storm Water Drainage on Garden Way from Sisters View Avenue to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and the North Side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Marche Chase Drive to Interstate 5; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date (Contract #2004-20) (Job #3502) Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations of the Hearings Official of June 6, 2005. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion because she felt the method of funding street upgrades was unjust. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department Paul Klope thought the annual percentage rate (APR) for the banking the assessment costs was six percent. He stated that the APR was fixed. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the motion required an affirmative vote of at least six councilors. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City adopt Council Bill 4903, an ordinance levying assessments for Garden Way. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 17 Regular Session