Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/10/06 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 10, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Papé. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Stephen L. Riley , 2212 Onyx Street, spoke in regard to the West Eugene Parkway issue. He read the job description of the Mayor and City Council members into the record. He underscored that councilors had taken an oath to uphold the office, something he considered to be solemn and sacred. He cited Title 18, United States Code 16.21, in which violation of an oath of office by members of government was a form of perjury. He felt the councilors who had tried to stop the parkway project had violated their oath. He quoted Grover Cleveland, who said “Public officers are the servants and agents of the people, to execute the laws which people have made.” He contended that once the vote of the people had been taken, even if it was not to pass a particular ordinance, it would carry the same weight in law as if it were. He also quoted Henry Clay, who said “The government is a trust and the officers of the government are the trustees, and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.” He said in our form of govern- ment, the councilors’ authority came from the people. He stressed that the people had not authorized the council to override the vote of the people. He stated that the purpose of the vote was for the people to express their desires and the elected officials were expected to carry out the will of the people. He declared that authorization of the project had been voted upon and approved twice and there had been a vote of the people to not authorize a look at any alternatives. He felt that members of the council had chosen to ignore this and called it an affront to the people of Eugene. Jim Hale , 1715 Linnea Avenue, averred that the State could punish the City of Eugene for its decisions regarding the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). He said “they can, they have, and they will.” He recalled working on the committee that wrote the Metropolitan General Plan and the Transportation Plan in the 1980s. He felt that, at that time, the State did punish Eugene for being what it considered a “poor planning partner.” He predicted that abandonment of the WEP would cause the City to have to fend for itself in west Eugene. He thought the City would have to “wait forever” for a solution to the transportation problems experienced on the Delta and Beltline highways. He likened watching the City Council over the last 25 years to watching the World Cup Soccer games: two sides evenly matched most of the time, too MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting many narrow votes, too many games decided by the referee, too little action, too much kicking the same thing back and forth all over the field. He was persuaded that the City needed a City Council “for all of the City.” He maintained that the Mayor’s tie vote would never constitute consensus and would never make the community one team. He believed the rules should be changed so the City was divided into five wards with two council representatives from each ward and a Mayor that voted on every issue. He thought there should be two committees of five councilors and the Mayor, one councilor from each ward, to divide up the affairs of the City. He suggested that issues should be decided by a four-vote majority in the committees and only difficult issues should come before the full council. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, questioned the legality of getting rid of a public park without a public hearing. Mr. Vishanoff had been pleased to read an article tying in mixed-use development, the basketball arena, and the alumni center with the sale of the Westmoreland Student Housing. He felt those projects would be public-private partnerships. He thought sustainability could be a “Pandora’s box” as it could preclude open bidding on contracts. He suggested the councilors were being silent on the issue of the Westmoreland sale because they felt they had to be quiet and let things happen for the sake of Bus Rapid Transit and other projects as they were interconnected. He said the City could recommit to public process around eminent domain in the Fairmount neighborhood or it could continue its “crazy new urbanist plan” to tear up his old neighborhood. D. H. Andrews , 2362 Shields Avenue, stated that his warehouse on Bertelson Road was underleased because it was undervalued. He attributed this to the WEP decision. He decided to close the business, put 16 employees out of work, and move from Eugene and “leave it all behind.” He reiterated that the issue had been voted on three times and the council “fought us and fought us and fought us.” He commented that if a dictator were going to run the City there did not need to be any more votes of the public. He alleged that the property was not worth as much today as it was 20 years ago because of the traffic congestion in the area. Mats White , 1424 Washington Street, said he was a member of the Jefferson-Westside Residents for Healthy Neighborhoods (J-WRHN), an independent group that formed earlier in the year because of residents’ concerns for the negative impacts that incompatible infill was having on their neighborhood. He stated that while J-WRHN was independent of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors, it intended to work cooperatively with it. He related that J-WRHN had been conducting outreach to involve residents for the past month and the tremendous participation in the petition they submitted demonstrated the success of their efforts. J-WRHN had been educating residents about land use policies, zoning rules and processes, and the essential elements of effective development standards. He conveyed J-WRHN’s commitment to constructive approaches to change. He said it was doing the necessary legwork to make sure that, when submitting recommendations to the council, facts had been thoroughly researched and that J-WRHN had done its best to work with the City and its staff and officials. He stated that the larger goal was for the council to adopt flexible effective zoning standards and processes that allowed additional dwellings to be built in neighborhoods while ensuring those developments were compatible with the character of the neighborhood. He said J-WRHN intended to come to the council and the Planning Commission to present ongoing research on the essential characteristics that defined their neighborhood and specific proposals for development standards. He reported that a portion of their neighborhood had recently been redesignated and this was cause for a great deal of concern. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting Ginny Osteen , 1540 Jefferson Street, a member of J-WRHN, related that she and her husband had lived in the Jefferson neighborhood since 1980 because they considered it to be charming, diverse, and close to downtown. She commented that when they moved to the neighborhood it was already a well-established, mostly single-family neighborhood consisting primarily of modest bungalows that were oriented to the street. People visited with their neighbors as they took walks or worked in the yard. She felt living there seemed uncrowded, even though houses were close together, because of the small private backyards. She asserted that families tended to stay once they had moved in. This long-term commitment of the residents made it a safe, stable, and attractive area to live in. She and her neighbors had never envisioned the type of development that would be permitted by R-2 zoning, rather they supported low-intensity appropriately scaled infill, such as the secondary dwellings R-1 zoning already allowed. She alleged that neighbors had been “stunned” to hear that the Planning Division had “slipped through” a Metro Plan amendment that would allow “intense. . .infill that was highly incompatible” with the neighborhood. She thought some neighbors were considering moving. She was fearful that a three-story four-plex would be built only feet from her yard under the new plan amendment. She wanted an informed public involvement in land use decisions for her neighborhood. th Angela Rooney , 520 West 15 Avenue, a resident of the Jefferson neighborhood for many years, said she and her neighbors had never before heard about plans to allow duplexes and triplexes to be built in backyards the way she alleged they were being built on the eastern side of the Jefferson neighborhood. She related that there were quite a few rental properties in the area and some of them were poorly maintained by absentee landlords. She averred that some landlords seemed to care very little about the neighborhood. She was bothered most by Planning staff, who she felt had not listened nor were listening now to the concerns of the neighborhood. She and neighbors spent over $1,000 on attorneys and many hours writing letters in order to prevent a lot from being rezoned to R-2. They were not opposed to the development of “granny cottages” in peoples’ backyards but did not wish to see a higher density of development as it would bring about a loss of privacy, an increase in traffic, and a change in the character of the neighborhood. At the time, she and her neighbors had won the land use appeal because it conflicted with the Metro Plan. She said now the neighborhood no longer had that kind of protection. She and a group of neighbors met with Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff to express concerns and to find out what they could do. She did not feel staff acknowledged the seriousness of the problem. Rather they discussed bureaucratic processes. She relayed her neighborhood’s anxiety about what was going to happen and urged the council to understand that this was a neighborhood and not just “lines on a map.” th Rene Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors (JWN), reported that the neighborhood association voted 48:0 to request adoption of a temporary moratorium on zone changes in the Jefferson neighborhood until effective infill standards could be implemented. She said the JWN Board explored various means to accomplish the intent of the motion. The JWN submitted a letter to the council in the previous week with two alternatives to consider: a simple council motion or a narrowly focused amendment to Eugene’s R-2 zoning code. She thought either approach could establish a temporary prohibition on R-2 zone changes without delay. She recalled council action taken through the past year that indicated the council recognized how damaging inappropriate infill had been to some of the established neighborhoods. She felt it was urgent that compatibility standards be implemented. She conveyed the appreciation of the JWN for the council’s efforts and its belief that the council’s leadership was essential in ensuring the continued health of the two close-in “heritage neighborhoods.” She thought opportunity siting, if done thoughtfully, could achieve density increases that she asserted unplanned infill had failed to produce “to any significant degree.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of the JWN, said the problems caused by the redesignation of 15 blocks of the Jefferson Neighborhood affect only a small area, but to the families that live there it was the part of Eugene that mattered most. He postulated that the councilors and Mayor held attachments to their neighborhoods’ health and vitality. He averred that in neighborhoods in which incompatible infill had degraded livability and jeopardized stability, one also found a strong desire among neighbors to stop this “senseless kind of development.” He reported that this desire was the foundation of two motions adopted by the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) urging prioritization of funding for rapid development of infill compatibility standards. He conferred with neighborhood leaders from all areas of town and it seemed the councilors did “get it.” He believed one of the key principles the majority of the council now supported was that numerical density targets should not be used as a justification to destabilize neighborhoods while preventing sprawl. He asserted that allowing speculators to “tear apart the fabric” of neighborhoods behind a façade of anti-sprawl rhetoric was both unfair to residents and proved ineffective as families with a choice abandoned declining neighborhoods. He called the Jefferson redesignation a “small but important icon” of what was wrong with the City of Eugene’s past infill practices. Peg Kehrer , 1510 Lincoln Street, related that when she moved into the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood there were families all around her house. Now she had a duplex next to her and a storage shed on her property line; the amount of sunshine to her yard was reduced and people smoked on the patios that faced her backyard. She lived on a corner lot and had three landlords for neighbors. She thought increasing population around the downtown area, as a goal, was a euphemism for the placement of landlords all around the existing single-family homes. She said if she had a lot of money she probably would have moved by now. She asked the council to seriously consider a moratorium on development. She expressed concern that houses abutting the Catholic grade school that were for sale would be purchased and developed. She recalled that when the duplex next door to her was built, her children were able to watch pornography on a tenant’s television from a second-story bathroom window. Jim Greig , 145 Ruby Street, thanked the council for its support for the Hinchey Rohrabacher Medical Marijuana Amendment vote in the United States Congress. He reported that the amendment had not passed, but as patients, Oregonians, and Americans, he and other medical marijuana users would continue to seek their right to life with dignity. He commented that he was one of the healthier medical marijuana patients, but he suffered with arthritis, glaucoma, muscle spasms, chronic pain, as well as sleep and eating issues. He expressed appreciation to the councilors for hearing his testimony at the previous meeting even if they had not signed the letter to Congress. He said medical marijuana users had been on the receiving end of “70-plus years of bad press on cannabis.” He averred they would have to conduct a broader educational effort on “this important ancient agricultural product.” He commented that for him it was an effective natural medicine. He stated that the council would be hearing more from medical marijuana users on issues related to the subject. He noted that while Oregon voted for the use of medical marijuana in 1988, patients still did not have access to it. He opined that the sickest “one half of one percent” should be allowed to live their final days with dignity and not as criminals. He invited the councilors to attend the Hempfest in Washington Park on July 15 and 16. Allan Erickson , 29559 Clear Lake Road, thanked the council for listening. He stated that there had been an absence of studies on medical marijuana use in the United States, but there had been studies in other countries that had shown that cannabis reduced the need for opiates for post-operative pain and it helped people with appetite loss and weight loss in cancer and chemotherapy, among others. David Sonnichsen , 2435 Skyline Boulevard, stated that he had worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on a local project and he had seen ODOT respond with sensitivity to environ- MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting mental concerns when planning and construction was underway for the Interstate 5 temporary replacement bridge through the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park. He thought it was unfortunate that at a higher level, ODOT had chosen not to support a continuing process to work on modern transportation solutions for west Eugene. He called the proposed WEP a “dinosaur.” He felt ODOT was attempting to “offload blame” on the City of Eugene. He found it unfortunate that some were predicting that ODOT would never be able to trust or cooperate with the City of Eugene again. He advised the City Councilors not to engage in finger-pointing and encouraged them to move forward and recognize that transportation remedies were plentiful. He felt those solutions did not have to involve rewarding speculators or the destruction of wetland habitat. He said if “we keep listening and talking,” the City would move forward. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. Regarding testimony from the residents of the Jefferson Neighborhood who lived in the redesignated area, she agreed that the R-2 designation was now a very high-density designation. She had taken a walk with the map that showed the number of units that would be allowed per lot. She thought all of the councilors would be astounded to see the kind of density that was now permitted with this “upzone.” She said she had forwarded the motions submitted by J- WRHN to the City Manager but had not heard any acknowledgement that there would be a response forthcoming. City Manager Dennis Taylor believed there was a staff response to the questions that had been raised and that it would be in the Thursday packet. Councilor Bettman thanked the neighbors in that area for the work they were doing. She thought they were on the right track to say they were willing to absorb some density but that they needed to do it in a way that supported the neighborhood. She asserted that blanket upzoning removed the incentive and the City’s leverage for opportunity siting. She thought this undermined a strategy the council was working hard to achieve. Councilor Taylor admired the neighbors who united to protect their neighborhood. She expressed some disappointment that the councilors had not yet heard from staff what measures the council could take to “prevent further deterioration” of neighborhoods. She acknowledged the receipt of a memorandum saying why the upzoning happened. She did not think they needed an explanation; rather they needed an idea of what to do. She wanted to continue encouraging people to live in central neighborhoods. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 12, 2006, Work Session - June 12, 2006, City Council Meeting - June 14, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4883 Adopting an Inflationary Adjustment of Systems Development Charge Rates for Regional Wastewater System Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly said he had previously submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy noted the corrections and deemed them, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman ascertained from the City Manager that the PDD and the City Attorney would have a memorandum to the council regarding a potential Ballot Measure 37 compensation fund and a discussion on it would be forthcoming in the Tentative Working Agenda. She added that she had submitted corrections to the minutes electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections to the minutes, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING POSSIBLE ACTION: and An Ordinance Concerning Regulation of Payday Loans and Adding Sections 3.550 through 3.560 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date Jason Heuser, Intergovernmental Relations Manager for the City Manager’s Office, reviewed the discussion thus far; that staff and the council had discussed the approach that at least four and potentially five Oregon cities had taken to regulate the payday loan industry at the local level. He said the approach was uniform with the ordinance that was before the City Council for consideration at the present meeting. He underscored that the local ordinances did not overlap in any way with what the State Legislature had enacted during its special session at which it passed the interest rates cap. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Pat Farr , 1929 Praslin Street, thanked the council for holding this public hearing on the payday loan ordinance. He thought it appalling that people would get stuck in the situation of being indebted to the payday loan industry. As the director of a local food bank, he could state that many of the thousands of Lane County residents that were in need of free food found themselves using this industry and compound- ing their need for food boxes for their families. He found it interesting that many of his clients used the services of others who happened to prey upon them to make excessive profits. He asserted that the profits of the payday loan industry did not stay in Eugene as most of the payday loan businesses had out-of-town owners. He said his wife, State Representative Debi Farr, chaired the committee that presented the legislation to the Oregon State House which was then ratified by the State Senate and signed into law by the Governor. He stated that this legislation provided some control on payday loan interest rates and some of the repayment requirements. He averred that though it was good legislation and had been backed up by “mountains of testimony,” a stronger message was needed Gary Gillespie , 2644 Kincaid Street, supported the payday loan ordinance. He said there was a direct cause and effect relationship between the huge number of payday loan operations in Oregon and the lack of effective regulation of the industry’s practices. He stated that Oregon was one of the least regulated states for payday loans. He underscored that there were more payday loan operations in Oregon than there were McDonald’s fast food establishments. He remarked that the rates charged by payday loan companies would “make a mafia don blush with embarrassment.” He said it was imperative that this ordinance and the effective sections be added to the Eugene Code because of the lack of regulation of the industry. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting hoped this ordinance would help to bring the payday loan organizations into the light of the vision of the citizens of Eugene and the payday loan companies would be forced to “check into justice.” Betty Snowden , P.O. Box 5166, Eugene, 97405, spoke as a business owner and a concerned citizen. She related the story of a family who became involved with a payday loan organization. The family lost their food stamps and took a $700 payday loan for a term of two weeks at a fee of $140 and an annual interest rate of 521 percent. The family had written a postdated check for $840 but the check had not cleared the bank after two weeks. The family was assessed a $25 check return fee and an offer to roll over the loan for $140 was made. This cycle repeated itself and the family took out two additional payday loans and a car title loan. She related that this family became caught in a financial trap until they finally sought the services of a local credit union, which helped them finance the repayment of what had become a debt of over $2,000. She said most of the customers of payday loan businesses were already cash-strapped and barely had their heads above water. She observed that when people were desperate they did desperate things. She declared that no one should be gouged with outrageous interest rates in loan terms that trap them in more debt. She said people get payday loans to help pay rent, buy groceries and medicine, but then end up in an even worse position because of them. She underscored that steps had to be taken to help the citizens of our community and the City could start with this payday loan ordinance. She thanked the council for its time and commended the councilors for their good work. Laurie Trieger , 2710 Polk Street, submitted testimony in writing on behalf of Dan Bryant. Ms. Trieger reported that the State Legislature had passed payday loan reform legislation in April that would not go into effect until July 2007. She said with over 700,000 payday loans being made in Oregon each year, tens of thousands of unregulated loans could be undertaken between now and then. She said the council had the power to offer people taking payday loans out in Eugene a modest bit of consumer protection almost immediately. Eugene would be joining seven other city governments in sending this message to the payday loan industry. She stated that the provisions in the ordinance were complementary to and not a duplication of the statewide law. She added that the ordinance was a perfect fit with the council’s initiative to address homelessness in Eugene. She stressed that in order to help families stabilize economically the City must do all it can to ensure their meager resources were not further watered down. She related that as Advocacy and Outreach Coordinator for Food for Lane County she had seen many changes in shifting trends but one thing remained constant: people who seek food boxes do so because they do not have the financial wherewithal to meet their basic human needs of safe secure shelter, adequate health care, and food. She averred that hunger persisted even in the face of news of a recovering economy and that for far too many Oregonians, wages were simply not keeping pace with the costs of providing basics. She said thousands of Oregon workers were losing ground. Many attempt to bridge the gaps created by poverty wages with short-term, high-interest payday loans and end up in a “debt trap.” She underscored that Food for Lane County’s mission was to eliminate hunger in the community and it was committed to providing emergency food programs and developing creative responses to the problem of hunger. She declared that in order to achieve that mission, a climate that honored families in their efforts to create healthy whole financially stable lives was required. She said the ordinance would provide modest protections for low- and middle-waged consumers of payday loans, many of whom also need food boxes. She added that she was also speaking on behalf of a local coalition that included members of the faith community, business owners, payday loan consumers, social service providers, labor representatives and concerned citizens. She urged the City Council to approve adoption and prompt enactment of the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Claire Syrett , 363 Adams Street, supported the ordinance. She thanked the Mayor and City Council for adopting the local wage and benefit standards for the West Eugene Enterprise Zone, making Eugene one of the only cities in the United States with community standards of this kind. She felt that in setting the standards, the City sent a clear message that good wages and benefits matter and are the key to fostering a healthy local economy. She said passage of the ordinance would protect the City’s most vulnerable citizens from economic exploitation. She stated that by addressing the economic pressures facing workers from both sides, encouraging higher wages, and protecting those in economic hardship, the council would show great leadership and strengthen the City’s economy and its community. She thanked the council. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Ortiz thanked Mr. Heuser for working so closely with the contingency of people that had brought this ordinance forward. She encouraged the council to take action at the present meeting. Councilor Taylor supported the ordinance. She felt it was a small way to alleviate poverty. Councilor Poling asked how soon the ordinance would go into effect if it was approved at the present meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that it would be 30 days. Councilor Poling asked if there was a way to put the ordinance into effect immediately. City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that there would have to be findings describing the nature of the emergency and the way in which the ordinance would address it specifically in accordance with the City Charter. Councilor Poling asked if this would be difficult at this point. City Manager Taylor surmised that staff and the council would have trouble maintaining that they had made thoughtful findings by doing it “right on the stump” after the hearing. He thought they could come back before the council in two weeks with the necessary findings in order to enact the ordinance sooner. Mr. Lidz stated that the council would need to make the finding that an earlier effective date was necessary to serve an important public purpose and a separate section would have to be added to the ordinance stating specifically why the earlier effective date was necessary. He thought it was possible to amend the ordinance so that this could be accomplished. Councilor Poling thought the issue was urgent enough that the council did need to set forth immediate protection for poor people who he felt were being taken advantage of. He liked that the ordinance was simple and did not go beyond what the State had laid out to go into effect in July 2007. Councilor Kelly supported the ordinance. He felt it provided a modest level of consumer protection. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Heuser affirmed that there were some elements of discretion, such as setting the amount of the fee and where the enforcement within the City would be, that would be carried out by administrative rule. He asked Mr. Lidz to elaborate. Mr. Lidz confirmed that there were portions of the ordinance that would be implemented by administrative rule, but there were other portions that would apply immediately when the ordinance went into effect. Mayor Piercy ascertained that there were no objections to taking action at the present meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4929, an ordinance concerning regulation of payday loans. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend Section 4 of the ordi- nance to provide for an immediate effective date and to add a Section 5 to the ordinance that would provide that an immediate effective date was necessary to serve the important public purpose of protecting the citizens of Eugene from unscrupulous practices of payday loan companies. Mayor Piercy indicated her support for the amendment and the amended motion. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0. Roll call vote; the amended motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. ACTION: Transfer of Water Pollution Control Facility Property from the City of Eugene to the Metropoli- tan Wastewater Management Commission Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to take the necessary steps to proceed with the transfer of approximately 95.56 acres of City- owned land to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), contin- gent upon MWMC’s agreement to convey to the City the right-of-way needed to complete the improvements abutting the MWMC site on River Avenue. Councilor Bettman indicated her support for the goal of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), which was to transfer the sewerage facilities. She felt some factors were complicated, however, as some of the property was acquired with mixed funds and some of the property was originally owned locally or federally. She wished to transfer what was needed in order to take care of the right-of-way and assessment issue and to create the amount of property needed to facilitate the sewer treatment and the conditional use permit (CUP) projected expansion, while retaining the amount of property that she did not believe was necessary to transfer to “make it even.” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to transfer only that portion of the 95.56 acres site that was bounded by River Avenue and the existing fence surrounding the water pollution control facilities on the other three sides. Councilor Bettman asserted that the riparian area outside of the fence was not necessary for the facility to expand or operate. She felt it was in the public benefit to retain the property. She acknowledged comments from staff that indicated there was a proportional benefit as two-thirds of the property was “strictly City property” and the larger proportion of ratepayers resided in Eugene. She felt those comments to be misleading. She asserted that the new capacity that a portion of rates was allocated for was not propor- tionally distributed as the communities that were growing faster were receiving a higher proportion of that benefit. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly asked why, from the MWMC staff perspective, the City of Eugene would not want to keep the excess property in its ownership or, if the MWMC wanted to keep it as a buffer, why would it not want the MWMC to pay a fee for it. Wastewater Division Director, Peter Ruffier, responded that in the 1977 IGA the partners agreed to transfer the existing wastewater facilities to the MWMC to complete the regional facilities and that a portion of the property that was contemplated being retained in the motion had been purchased with regional or non-City funds. He clarified that the portion to the east and a portion to the northeast had never originally been part of the Eugene wastewater treatment plant. Councilor Kelly asked if the 1977 IGA did not address a smaller transfer of property. Mr. Ruffier affirmed that it did not. He clarified that when the council had last revised the IGA, it revised the section that said it sought to facilitate completion of the process of transferring ownership of the existing facilities to complete the regional facilities. He related that over time, the City purchased or condemned the properties necessary to complete the regional facility and it was because the process had not been completed all at one time that the titles were not all transferred at the time of each individual purchase. Councilor Kelly asked why the MWMC purchased some of the land to the northeast if it had not needed it for current or future sewerage. Mr. Ruffier was uncertain. He conjectured that it had been purchased because it was contiguous. Councilor Kelly commented that it was unfortunate that no members of the MWMC were present. It was noted that Councilor Poling served on the board of the MWMC. Councilor Poling understood that the additional land had been purchased as a buffer between the actual working facility and the surrounding area. Mr. Ruffier affirmed that it served that purpose. He added that when the facility was originally designed there were expectations for expansion and enough land was purchased to double the capacity of the existing plant, given the design capabilities at the time. Councilor Poling asked if any of the land would be used if the plant was doubled in size or if it would remain a buffer and a dedicated bicycle path. Mr. Ruffier replied that under the 2004 Facilities Plan, which had been approved by the council, that property would stay as open space and a buffer area and the expanded facilities would all fit within the existing fence line, with one small exception. Councilor Poling noted that there had been some question regarding an island in the river raised at the last meeting. He wanted to point out that the island was not always accessible and usable given that it was often underwater during the winter. He also understood that if additional open space was needed, the City could come to the MWMC and request it. Mr. Ruffier said this was true. Councilor Poling said he could not support the amendment. He wanted to honor the original IGA as well as the one that had been reapproved in May. Councilor Bettman said she conferred with Mr. Lidz regarding the wording and she understood that some of the property had been purchased with mixed funds. However, she wished to note that some of the property that was being transferred had been purchased with local funds. She asserted that the property had been worth $1 million in 1991. Mr. Ruffier clarified that the original wastewater treatment plant had been listed as an asset worth $774,000 at that time. Councilor Bettman responded that it had not been appraised. She felt that given it was riverside property, it had likely increased in value. She said in the absence of appraisals, she thought it safe to assume that the City of Eugene was making a contribution above and beyond what was proportional MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting to the City of Springfield and that it was “obviously above and beyond” what the MWMC needed. She opined it would be “wise stewardship” to retain the property. City Manager Taylor asked the City Council to resist the amendment for the following reasons: 1. It would require an additional partition; 2. It would renege on the City’s initial commitment to the MWMC; 3. It would add more cost, both for the cost of the partition and for what the City would be assessed as part of the Local Improvement District (LID) for River Avenue, given that this would give MWMC a smaller footprint. Councilor Pryor said while he could appreciate the desire to retain property that might not be needed by the MWMC, he was also aware that this was part of the original deal, and this deal involved a variety of funding sources. He questioned the notion of MWMC doing something with the property that the City of Eugene would not do with it, such as developing it. Mr. Ruffier assured the council that the property outside the fence line was planned to be open space and there were no plans to develop it. In fact, he pointed out that the site currently operated under a CUP that specified that this land would be maintained as open space. Councilor Pryor was not persuaded that the City needed to preserve this land in order to protect it. Mr. Ruffier reminded the council that the options before it included the transfer of easements necessary to maintain the bikeway. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, City Manager Taylor stated that the change would not affect the properties that were not abutting the road. Councilor Bettman said that as she researched one of the zoning land use code updates, she learned that no CUPs had been denied in over ten years. She alleged that whatever the applicant wanted could be provided for or permitted with some conditions and the conditions were flexible. She asked if Mr. Ruffier could guarantee that the property would not be developed and that it would be preserved in open space in perpetuity. Mr. Ruffier replied that he could not. Councilor Bettman opined that the amendment was a “good compromise.” Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Ortiz voting in favor. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the motion could include language that would indicate that the City was retaining its easements for bicycle paths and City facilities. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion that would add language indicating that the City would retain easements for bicycle paths and City facilities. Councilor Solomon accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the main motion to add the following words to the end: “. . .and the transfer of property by the City of Springfield to the MWMC consistent with the Intergovern- mental Agreement.” The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second. The motion, with friendly amendments, passed 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposi- tion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Condominiums; Amending Section 2.160, 2.1064, 2.1070, and 2.0174 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4928, an ordinance concerning condominiums. City Manager Taylor clarified that this ordinance would require six affirmative votes for the immediate effective date. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the addition of language including the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Councilor Kelly echoed her appreciation. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 13 Regular Meeting