Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/13/05 Mtg 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 Pap~, 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. Vishanofftook 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 %lap 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session Kyle Burns, 1390 West 10th 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 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session Jessica Tennat, 1131 Monroe Street, explained that she was the owner of the Monroe Street Cafd and had owned it for 16 months. She wished to respond to neighbors who testified at the previous meeting. She 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 cafd 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 cafd 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 cafd 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 often 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." MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session Kevin Barber, 3152 Raleighwood Avenue, Springfield, read a letter from Vincent Fiani, submitted to the Monroe Street Cafd, 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 cafd. He did not think there was any lewd or inappropriate behavior nor did he believe the noise level of music was excessive. He suggested that taking away the OLCC license would cripple the ability for the cafd's owner to make a living. Mr. Barber, speaking on his own behalf, stressed that sound levels and the activity in the from 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 Yuylsteke, 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 cafd participated in the Friday Art Walk and this month featured 30 artworks submitted by employees and patrons of the caf6. 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 l0th 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 caf6. She worked regular shifts at the counter and was the head chef. She said the cafd 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 Cafd 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 Papd 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 15th 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session 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. Councilor Bettman said the only question in regard to the Monroe Street Caf~ issue was whether or not it was functioning as a market/caf~ 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 Cafe. 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 %etter 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session Councilor Poling deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman indicated she had also submitted minutes corrections electronically. 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 Pap~ 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 Pap~, 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 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session 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 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 (ALS), 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 AlS 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 AlS 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 AlS 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 Pap~ surmised that the team was a set of ~fresh eyes looking to improve upon what we want in the community." Councilor Pap6 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session 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. 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 %ertainly 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 Papa'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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session 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. 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 Pap~ 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Councilor Bettman wished to clarify, regarding AlS 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 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 '~jibed" 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 Pap6 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 Pap6, 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 Pap6 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 Pap~ 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 Pap~ observed that the money was listed as going into Public Works. Mr. Corey responded that MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session 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 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 %mart 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 %mart growth" and how it ~facilitates poor development projects." He averred it was a ~packaging exercise." He said one article from CNN on %mart 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session 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. 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 AlS. She noted that the AlS 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 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session 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 Pap6 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 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 carried 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 investments." 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session 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 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 Pap~ 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 Pap~ 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 %ports 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 %leventh 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session 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 community. 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 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 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session 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. 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 ¥ishanoff, 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 %oring." 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 %kipping" removal of the median and this could save lives. Mr. Vishanoff related that he had seen designs for a %culptural" 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 16 Regular Session 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 17 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 Pap~, 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 18 Regular Session