Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC Minutes - 07/08/02 Work Session
MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 8, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from the Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Nathanson raised the issue of fireworks and fire safety. She said she had walked through her neighborhood the evening of July 4 and witnessed many instances of illegal fireworks use. A major house fire had occurred in her neighborhood the past weekend, which increased her concern about fire risk. Ms. Nathanson asked how many citations the police issued on July 4 for illegal fireworks use and, if citations had been issued, whether the media was made aware of those citations so it could heighten public awareness of the illegality of those fireworks. Ms. Nathanson noted the delay in the council's work plan activity related to examination of City codes for possible changes to require fire-resistant building and roofing materials. The house fire she witnessed had a cedar shake roof, which became fully engulfed. She asked about the time line for the work item, and if staff had started outreach with homebuilders, realtors, and contractors to share information about such fire-resistant roofing and building materials. Ms. Nathanson requested information regarding the status of the humidity and temperature monitoring device previously proposed to be purchased with telecommunications franchise fees. Mr. Rayor arrived. Fire Chief Tom Tallon responded to Ms. Nathanson's questions, saying the City responded to 171 calls for fireworks-related fires; 162 of those calls were police calls regarding smoke and noise and generally no arrests were made because there was no one present to arrest there when the police arrived. Thirteen of the calls involved dispatched fire apparatus, and of those, two were actually fires. Citations were issued for one of the fires. Chief Tallon said that not many citations were MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 1 Work Session issued annually. He said that Oregon Revised Statutes provided for fines of up to $2,000 and six months in jail, but if the City was to do more enforcement it would need more resources. Regarding the temperature monitoring device mentioned by Ms. Nathanson, Chief Tallon reported that the concept was dropped five years ago because those fees were no longer available for the purpose, but he thought it a useful device that would help the department assess wind and fire conditions. Regarding fire-resistant materials and working toward better building codes, Chief Tallon supported that direction and agreed the current code was currently not sufficient to address the hazard that existed. He noted that the department was currently examining a residential sprinklering proposal. Mr. Pap~ arrived. Chief Tallon emphasized the political will and financial commitment to increased police and fire services required to discourage the use of illegal fireworks. Mr. Fart said that Class A materials were advisable for use in the south hills. That rating was easy for the consumer to ascertain. Mr. Fart indicated he would leave the work session briefly to attend a meeting of the Bethel School Board, which was considering a resolution urging the council to move forward with a property tax levy in support of the school districts. Mr. Farr requested information from City Manager Jim Carlson regarding the status of the intersection at Royal Avenue and Terry Street. Mr. Carlson indicated a traffic signal would be installed at the intersection during the summer months. Mr. Farr noted his interest in getting speed signs installed between street intersections, such as along Terry Street, and asked the manager for help in getting changes made in that area. He also requested information on how the City's two speed readers were used and how residents could request them in their neighborhood. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Carlson said that council action on an ordinance regarding the use of air brakes in the city limits was scheduled September 9, following the public hearing on August 12. Mr. Farr noted he would be following up on information received by the City Council on the loss of business because of the implementation of tobacco-related ordinances. Mr. Rayor thanked Chief Tallon for the description of the Emergency Medical Service system modifications. He said that it was the best encapsulation he had seen of the issue to this point. He believed the department was being responsible in how it addressed the problem. Mr. Rayor emphasized the continuing importance of the South Willamette Street traffic situation and urged that work go forward to address the problems that existed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Rayor expressed appreciation to Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office for her suggested wording related to changes to the text related to conflict of interest proposed for the City Charter. Mr. Rayor said that Mr. Pap8 had received criticism for his perceived conflicts of interest, and he expressed support for Mr. Pap8 and said he had found him to be one of the most open, honest, and ethical people he had served with. He believed the new conflict of interest proposal could improve the situation. Mr. Pap8 thanked Mr. Rayor for his comments. Mr. Pap8 indicated he would ask the council to table action on the Ayres Road assessments, scheduled for the regular meeting later in the evening. Mr. Kelly echoed Mr. Rayor's concerns about traffic conditions on South Willamette Street. He believed that there were small steps that could be taken to improve the situation. Ms. Taylor was also concerned about traffic issues, particularly in south Eugene, and called for a citywide committee on traffic issues. Ms. Taylor requested that a work session on fire works use be held six months before the next Fourth of July. Ms. Bettman reported she met with Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey following the goals session, and the department was moving forward with improvements to South Willamette Street, starting with the pedestrian crosswalk, which would be installed this summer. She hoped more would be done. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Carlson for information on the status of the City's response to the Land Use Board of Appeals remand, and for projected time lines for that response. Ms. Bettman requested information regarding the level of police services provided to the Southern Pacific Railroad property, if it was above and beyond what the Eugene Police Department would normally be doing, and if the City received remuneration for that. Mr. Carlson said that the council received a memorandum on the topic some weeks past. He said that the City had several letter agreements with property owners allowing the police to cite trespassers on their property. The City will perform that service for any owner requesting such a letter agreement. Ms. Bettman regretted the Permit and Information Center had chosen to cut the morning receptionist position. She believed the division had received adequate funds to function and that there were other options the department could have considered, such as raising some fees that were inadequate to recover the cost of services and reducing the number of free services offered to the development community. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Bettman's remarks about the Permit and Information Center receptionist hours. He also joined in Mr. Rayor's comments regarding the unfair and unwarranted criticisms leveled at Mr. Pap~. Mr. Meisner emphasized the importance of working with the County's Land Management Division on Lane County code changes related to fire-resistant materials. He said that it was crucial the County be involved. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner reported on a recent National League of Cities (NLC) training regarding policy governance he had attended in Big Sky, Montana. He termed the training a disappointment, saying that it had contained little content. Mr. Meisner said he was working with another NLC member from Gresham and NLC staff to find better trainers that could be shared. Mr. Carlson clarified the fire in Ms. Nathanson's neighborhood was started by a lighted cigarette that was discarded by the property owner. He said that staff would continue to work on the issue of fire-resistant building materials. Mayor Torrey asked how people could report consistent speeders in their neighborhoods, and what follow-up occurred when a citizen reported the license plate number of a speeder to the police. Mayor Torrey reported that a brief process session was scheduled for August 9. He invited suggestions regarding the issues to be discussed, and distributed a list of issues that had been identified to this point. Mayor Torrey encouraged councilors to indicate to Councilor Coordinator Kate Rowles their committee preferences soon. B.WORK SESSION: Discussion of Recommended Amendments to the Eugene City Charter Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office was present for the item. She said that the main topic of discussion was the Citizen Charter Review Committee's (CCRC) recommendations related to an in-house city attorney. She noted three proposals related to the topic had been distributed to the council, one from the CCRC, one from former City Manager Jim Johnson, and one from Mr. Kelly. Ms. Walston deferred credit for the text change related to conflict of interest to City Attorney Jerome Lidz. Mr. Kelly called attention to a side-by-side comparison of the three proposals and said his proposal reflected the concerns expressed by Mr. Johnson and restores the recommendation of the CCRC that the appointment of an in-house attorney by the City Manager be confirmed by the City Council. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to refer the proposed new Subsection 7 of Section 16, concerned with the city attorney, using his proposed text, to the following ballot in the November 2002 election. The text read: "The City Manager shall appoint a city attorney, subject to confirmation by the city council. The city attorney shall serve as chief legal advisor to the council and the city manager, shall devote full-time to the duties of this office, and may not engage in the private practice of law. The city attorney shall supervise the performance of all contracts for legal services." Mr. Fart said he was willing to put the item before the voters but he did not support a change in the status quo. The City received the benefit of a large firm rather than having to develop its own internal resources. While the appointed attorney could issue contracts, he did not think the City would receive the same level of dedication it did from the current firm. He thought it refreshing to have a City Attorney present who did not receive a paycheck signed by the City Manager. He thought there was a strength in having a citizen firm MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 4 Work Session representing the City of Eugene. Mr. Fart hoped the proposal would not result in a divisive community argument. Ms. Nathanson was interested in the concept of an in-house counsel that managed a basket of services. However, she had seen no evidence that the concept would save money or produce a better result. She had previously considered that the position would assist the manager, but now questioned whether it would hinder communication because it would create a new third party through which employees must act. She said that the City had taken steps to reduce its legal costs, and asked how that process was working. Mr. Carlson said that the City had decided to use an in-house City Prosecutor and was in the process of filling the position. The position would act in a manner similar to what was envisioned by the committee. The recruitment process did not result in a definitive candidate because the two finalists had very different, needed strengths; both were subsequently hired. He suggested that the council not tie the City too closely through the charter as to how legal services were managed. Mr. Meisner said he would vote to support the measure. He wanted an attorney whose only loyalty was to the City. He did not want a firm that had clients with interests that were at odds with the City, and did not want an attorney with a profit motive. He was also interested in consistency, and said that to suggest a lesser quality attorney would be in public practice was to insult all the lawyers who worked for other levels of government. He thought the proposal, if implemented, would be cost-effective. Mr. Meisner said he would work to support the campaign in support of the proposal. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that there could be communications issues but believed those were readily resolvable. Mr. Papd said that the council should refer the measure to the voters. He liked the concept of a having a City gatekeeper for legal services. He shared Mr. Carlson's concerns about the authority and accountability of the attorney in terms of City contracts and suggested that provision be deleted from the motion. Mr. Papd asked Mr. Kelly if the manager would have the right to fire the attorney without council consultation. Mr. Kelly said yes. Mr. Papd, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by removing the last sentence in Mr. Kelly's proposal ("The city attorney shall supervise the performance of all contracts for legal services"). Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Carlson that removal of the sentence did not preclude an arrangement whereby the City Attorney would manage the contracts for legal services. He pointed out that historically, the Administrative Services Director managed that function, and following the departure of the recent incumbent, he had assumed that responsibility as the acting department director and then as Assistant City Manager in charge of Central Services. Mr. Kelly said he was not thinking in terms of a contract manager but of legal oversight of outside attorneys. He opposed the amendment but said he could support alternative language that made the intent clear. He suggested alternatively, "The City Attorney shall provide oversight for all legal services done for the City." Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment. She said that the contracts in question were just for legal services, not all contracts. She thought it important the City had someone with legal expertise monitoring such legal contracts. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner said he would support a motion that retained the intent of the last sentence while making it clear the attorney was subject to the authority of the City Manager. He did not support merely striking the sentence. Mr. Fart suggested "provide oversight to" as opposed to "supervise." Mr. Carlson emphasized the council was proposing to change the charter, and suggested that the charter not be overburdened with detail. He pointed out that the charter was not specific to the fact that, because the manager was not an engineer, a licensed civil engineer supervised the City's contracts with engineers. Mayor Torrey did not support the proposal but urged the council to keep what it referred to the citizens clear. He said that the language before the council did not give the manager authority over the in-house attorney. He thought the last sentence in the proposal made it difficult to clarify the responsibilities of the parties involved. Mayor Torrey expressed concern about how the changes being proposed impacted the job the city manager was tasked to do. He pointed out that the charter did not need to be changed for what the proposal envisioned to happen. Ms. Taylor thought the last sentence must be retained. She said that the person in question should be responsible for legal contracts. If the person did not do their job correctly, like any other department head, he or she be told so and would probably lose the job. Ms. Taylor asked CCRC member Ken Tollenaar his opinion of the proposal. Mr. Tollenaar said he had just seen the text. He suggested that as a compromise, the sentence be revised to read, "With supervision from the City Manager, the city attorney shall oversee performance of all contracts for legal services." Ms. Taylor preferred the text proposed by Mr. Kelly because she took it for granted the City Manager oversaw all operations in the City. Mayor Torrey solicited another round of council comments. Mr. Pap~ objected to the phrase "supervise all contracts" because of the City's other contracts, such as its self- insurance contracts, which were better overseen by someone with the appropriate expertise. He indicated he would accept Mr. Tollenaar's text as a friendly amendment, with the concurrence of his second, Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson asked to examine the amended text. Ms. Bettman asked if the proposed amendments would lead to a situation where the manager oversaw some contracts and the city attorney oversaw others, meaning there were some contracts that the city attorney did not oversee. Mr. Carlson interpreted the amendments as making the City Manager responsible for some contracts and the city attorney responsible for others. Ms. Bettman believed the change in text would "marginalize" the city attorney from the start. She said that, consistent with the CCRC provision, the City Manager would have the power to replace the person hired to fill the position if that person did not perform to the manager's expectations. She thought the motion suggested that the City was going to move toward an in-house attorney, but only halfway, because the manager could determine which contracts he would oversee. She thought that the change could allow the City Manager to conduct the City's legal business through the existing firm, which accomplished nothing. She termed the change a huge loophole that could mean a legal mind was not overseeing the City's legal contracts. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 6 Work Session After examination of the motion as potentially amended, Ms. Nathanson suggested that the motion addressed three different topics: 1) the appointment, 2) the assigmnents, and 3) the affiliation. She suggested that the first sentence be retained, and the following text be modified to incorporate Mr. Tollenaar's suggestion, so the text read: "The City Manager shall appoint a city attorney, subject to confirmation by the City Council. The city attorney shall serve as chief legal advisor to the council and the City Manager. With supervision by the City Manager, the city attorney shall oversee performance o fall contracts for legal services. The city attorney shall devote full time to the duties of this office, and may not engage in the private practice of law." Mr. Papd accepted the modified amendment text suggested by Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Fart asked about other legal services the City purchased. Mr. Carlson cited legal contracts with bond counsel, for example. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Bettman said she regretted that the more specific text drafted by the CCRC was not adopted, and thanked Mr. Kelly for attempting to craft a compromise. She believed that an in-house attorney was important because an in-house city attorney would be loyal to the City. She was concerned about the situational conflicts created by the current contract and the fact the current firm competed in the private market and could potentially be litigating for a client who may be an adversarial position with the City. Ms. Bettman thought the situation eroded public credibility in the City. She said having a city attorney means that the accountability of the attorney was to the taxpayers of Eugene, not the law firm. Ms. Bettman wished the council was considering a stronger and more expansive measure, but in the spirit of compromise would support the motion as amended. Mr. Carlson envisioned that, if approved by the voters, the change would result in the hiring of an attorney who would sit at the council in the same manner as the current attorney and manage the basket of services. That meant that the City would still have a contract with someone like the current firm, which would raise the same issues Ms. Bettman mentioned. He pointed out that under ethics rules, the firm has to disclose its conflicts, and the manager gets to determine whether the conflict could be waived. Ms. Bettman said she understood the text did not preclude hiring more attorneys in the future, and the issue of the conflict was that someone with loyalty to the City would oversee the contracts. She said if Mr. Carlson was suggesting the text could preclude hiring more attorneys, she would vote against the motion. Mr. Carlson did not think hiring more attorneys was precluded. The current charter did not preclude the City from establishing an attorney's office and hiring several attorneys. Mr. Kelly agreed that a decision to hire additional attorneys was not precluded by the adoption of the language under consideration. He said the difference resulting from the change would be that the situational conflicts would be managed by an attorney who was a City employee. Mr. Rayor thought the proposed change was raised by valid concerns. He said the charter proposal was a credible way of addressing those concerns. It retained the council/manager form of government. He would have opposed a motion that called for the attorney to manage contracts. Mr. Rayor believed the City received MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 7 Work Session very good legal representation, which was a 180 degree change from his original opinion on the issue. He was impressed by the professionalism of the firm. Mr. Rayor endorsed the revision as a good oversight step. He thought to go farther would not be a good idea. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the motion but said she would have preferred the CCRC's text. She said that the manager could now hire an attorney, but there needed to be a charter requirement that he do so. She thought it important the attorney be able to hire staff without supervision from the manager, like other department heads. She determined from Mr. Carlson that he did not personally hire all staff. Mayor Torrey did not know what benefit the City realized from the change. He acknowledged trust might be one outcome. He thought the manager already hired good legal staff. With regard to trust, he suggested that the mayor be given veto authority over the confirmation process. If three councilors agreed with the mayor, the process of hiring would begin again. He also called for a definition of "council" to be included in the charter: did it include the mayor? Mayor Torrey thought an in-house attorney would be very expensive. Mr. Farr asked Mr. Carlson if he thought the proposal would save money. Mr. Carlson thought it was likely to cost money as there would be some duplication of support staff. There was interaction and information sharing that occurred at the firm to keep all the contract attorneys in touch with what was happening that would have to be duplicated with a city attorney. Mr. Farr asked what staff demands the in-house counsel would have. Mr. Carlson said that was not yet determined. Mr. Farr said he was not opposed to putting the issue before the voters but hoped they understood that the proposal was not a cost-savings measure. Mr. Carlson noted that there was an existing five-year contract with the current firm that would have to be considered if the charter amendment were passed. Mr. Pap6 asked if the new attorney would supervise the City Prosecutor. Mr. Carlson said that the legal services for which the position contracted could fall under the purview of the city attorney. Mr. Lidz agreed with Mr. Carlson. He said that the supervision of the city attorney would be the responsibility of the City Manager. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about that, and suggested that the legislative history be noted. Mr. Pap6 believed that the proposed position could potentially save the City money, particularly if the City's services were bundled differently, which could realize more competition and hence more savings. In response to the mayor's comment, Ms. Bettman believed the mayor's role was already clearly defined in the charter. She did not want to over-complicate the issue before the council. Mr. Rayor thought the position might save money, saying a city attorney could serve as a gatekeeper to control legal inquiries from departments. He said that the proposal was not a "get the contract" proposal, but just gave additional tools to the manager. Mr. Kelly noted the council was defined in the charter as eight councilors. The charter gave the mayor specific powers to veto ordinances. Mr. Kelly believed that the communication issues referred to by Mr. Carlson already existed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked when the existing contract expired. Mr. Carlson said that the contract was for five years, and it was in the third year. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Rayor left the meeting briefly. C.WORK SESSION: Funding for Transportation System Maintenance The council was joined by Public Works Director Kurt Corey for the item. Mr. Corey reminded the council of the $67 million road maintenance backlog, which was anticipated to grow to $230 million over the next ten years. He said that a combination of factors outside Eugene's control led to the conclusion that it is not possible to address either ongoing maintenance needs or to address the maintenance backlog without a locally controlled source of revenue as recommended by the Budget Citizen Subcommittee. The subcommittee recommended a two-pronged approach, a local option motor vehicle fuel tax and a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). Mr. Corey said that Eugene was working with the City of Springfield on a proactive public outreach program regarding the needs that currently exist. Mr. Corey called attention to two draft ordinances implementing the subcommittee's recommendations for fiscal year 2003. He said that the council needed to determine whether it wanted to move forward with those funding sources, and whether the subcommittee's recommendations were the appropriate vehicles. He noted that the fiscal year 2003 budget contained about $4.5 million dollars in anticipation of these fees. Mr. Corey called attention to Attachment A in the meeting packet, which included the staff response to councilors' questions. He called attention to Attachment B, an ordinance which called for the implementation of a four cent per gallon local motor vehicle fuel tax. He reviewed the ordinance, noting that it was consistent with the ordinances developed by other Oregon cities and counties as well as consistent with provisions of the Oregon Constitution and the State mechanism for collecting a fuel tax. Mr. Corey noted the inclusion of Attachment C in the meeting packet, a draft ordinance enacting a transportation system maintenance fee, and reviewed the elements of the ordinance. He noted the staff recommendation that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) be the local billing agent and clarified that EWEB could not be directed to collect the fee as suggested in the draft ordinance. He said staff would revise the ordinance and recommend that authority be delegated to the City Manager to oversee the collection of the revenues. Mr. Corey estimated the fee would be approximately $2.90 a month for a single-family residence, $37.60 for a 20-unit apartment building, $20 for a general office building, $55 for a speciality retail center, $215 for a restaurant, and $1,150 for a supermarket. Mr. Corey called attention to Attachment D, a staff memorandum entitled Update on Transportation Funding Outreach, and described types of outreach efforts that had occurred to date. Mr. Corey acknowledged staff that had been involved in the development of the options before the council. He also acknowledged the contribution of Springfield Public Works Director Dan Brown, who was also present. Mr. Corey invited questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Torrey requested council comments and questions. Mr. Fart believed that the recommendations before the council would make it more difficult and expensive for people to do business in Eugene. It concerned him that the council was again considering creating an uneven playing field for business. He believed that it would mean people would leave the community to buy gas. He wanted the council to proceed with caution before making it more expensive for people to shop in Eugene. Mr. Kelly noted that Springfield was contemplating a similar local gas tax and expressed appreciation to the Springfield representatives for that city's cooperation. He noted that the ordinance gave the manager authority to begin collection; he thought there needed to be an added sentence that stated it was the intent of the council that collection not begin until Springfield implemented its tax. Mr. Kelly thought the ordinances were a good start. He suggested to Mr. Fart that failing streets were also not hospitable to businesses. Mr. Fart left the meeting briefly. Mr. Kelly asked if there were other residential factors that could be introduced in rate-making for the TSMF. He expressed appreciation that staff was willing to consider fee reductions for those who attempted to do the right thing. Mr. Kelly said that the council had discussed the revenue sources in question as sources for operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P) funding only, and he thought the ordinance related to gas taxes needed to be revised to ensure that the money was dedicated to that purpose. Ms. Bettman agreed with the remarks of Mr. Fart and Mr. Kelly and said she would only be willing to consider a gas tax if Springfield adopted one. She expressed surprise that the ordinances were not to be referred to the voters given that there was a tax increase involved. She did not want to make the decision involved for the taxpayers, particularly because people thought they were already paying taxes for the purpose involved. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the funding should be dedicated to ©M&P. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support a carefully worded measure to refer to the voters. She expressed concern that the tax was being proposed through an ordinance, which could be altered by a future council. She said the voters should be aware of that fact. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen in the future to the gas tax dollars the City was receiving from the State and the County Road Fund. If the City continued to receive a share of County Road Funds, would they be dedicated to ©M&P or spent on new projects? Could that funding reduce the amount of the TSMF collected? Mr. Corey said that Lane County was quite specific about the City's use of the County's Road Funds, and he looked for that use to continue. He did not anticipate that the County funds would necessarily be available in the future, but if they were, the TSMF rates could be adjusted. Regarding the staff recommendation to adopt the tax by ordinance, Mr. Corey said that staff's one-on-one discussions with the council did not indicate any clear direction regarding the matter, MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 10 Work Session and staff was making the recommendation for adoption by ordinance as that was consistent with the approach taken by other Oregon cities. He emphasized that the success of such programs was based on the results achieved, not on the debate regarding how the City got to the particular funding source. He said that the council could determine if it wished the issue to go to the voters. Mr. Rayor returned to the meeting. Mr. Carlson said that the City was using all its State shared gas tax money as well as County Road Fund money for OM&P. The City was using SDCs, grants, and assessments for new capacity projects. Regarding the TSMF, he said staff wanted to be clear it was listening to input about not spending money on street capacity improvements. The Citizen Budget Subcommittee had discussed the potential of using the funding to fill in gaps in the sidewalk system, street lights, traffic signals, and bicycle path extensions. Those elements were considered capacity improvements. Staff did not want to preclude the use of fee revenues being spent for those purposes, so specifically recommended limiting those dollars to projects not involving new street capacity. Regarding the gas tax, Mr. Carlson said that staff was proposing to employ the State constitutional limits now governing the use of those revenues. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, that the City's County Road Fund and State gas tax dollars were devoted now to OM&P. Mr. Carlson noted that the specific capital project funding from the County is spent on capacity, such as opening Broadway, at the discretion of the County commissioners. However, the City did not spend any flexible funding on anything but OM&P. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation to the citizen members of the Budget Committee for their defensible and well-reasoned recommendations. He concurred that the motor vehicle fuel tax ordinance should be contingent upon Springfield's adoption of a similar gas tax, and also concurred with limiting its use to OM&P. Regarding the proposed TSMF, he expressed concern that the background materials mentioned possible adjustments to the trip generation characteristics of different uses, but no adjustments were identified in the ordinance. Mr. Meisner wanted text in the ordinance to ensure that the council reviewed the staff evaluation of the adjustments prior to adoption of the administrative rules. Mr. Meisner did not believe the ordinance needed to be referred to the voters as the voters could also refer the ordinance if they wished. He pointed out that the council did not object to raising the stormwater fee, which was done without a public hearing, much less a vote. Mr. Pap8 also thanked the Citizen Budget Subcommittee and complimented staff for the good work it had done in making a difficult issue understandable. He agreed with Mr. Farr that a gas tax increase would drive motorists to other communities. He asked about the County's reaction to a countywide gas tax proposal. Mr. Carlson said he recently reminded Bill Dwyer, chair of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners, that the board agreed to discuss a gas tax and countywide vehicle registration fee; Mr. Dwyer had indicated willingness to pursue the topics, but no work sessions had yet been scheduled. Mr. Pap8 encouraged councilors to make contact with the commissioners and advocate that a board work session be scheduled. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Bettman about the need to refer the issue to the voters. He thought putting the issue to a vote would help the councilors do their jobs as public officials better, in that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 11 Work Session they would have to work to communicate and educate the voters and convince them of the need to come together in partnership with the council to solve the problem. Mr. Pap~ questioned how the TSMF ordinance related to the information provided to the council about the trip generation characteristics of different uses and potential adjustments. Mr. Corey said that the ordinance had no specific inclusion of correlated characteristics. Those issues would be considered when the administrative rules were developed. Staff recommended that the council adopt six classifications for residential users and corresponding rates for nonresidential users for the purpose of simplicity, consistency, and legality. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the City take advantage of the list of drivers licenses as opposed to using a house's square footage, which could change. Mr. Corey said that the number of drivers licenses did not correlate to system impact. Mr. Carlson pointed out that out-of-state and out-of- country students, for example, do not have Oregon licenses and cannot be tracked. If the City used the number of drivers in a household, it would have to account for all State information and account for out-of-state and foreign drivers. That information changed all the time depending on who was living in a unit in any given month, making it a major undertaking to maintain a database. Mr. Carlson suggested that a square footage approach would require less database maintenance as the information did not change often, and it could be updated through the Building Division. That approach had some positive correlation with trip-making, and it could be a more viable approach than either counting drivers licenses or registered vehicles, given the number of out-of-state vehicles in Eugene. Mr. Pap~ endorsed the use of TSMF revenues to pay for filling gaps in the sidewalk system, street lights, traffic signals, and bicycle path extensions. Ms. Taylor said she was amazed the council was discussing new taxes after its discussion of June 24, during which a council majority rejected several alternative taxing proposals. Ms. Taylor said it was her perception, following a discussion with County representatives in December 2001, that the board was open to a gas tax. She did not think the City should move forward on its own without knowing what the County would do. She suggested that holding a public hearing was premature. Ms. Taylor said she would not support a TSMF if it was not referred to the voters. She thought it a regressive and unfair tax that was difficult to make more fair, and did not anticipate that attaching the fee to utility bills would be popular with the public. Ms. Taylor reiterated her interest in a countywide approach. Ms. Nathanson complimented the staff for the information provided to the council. She asked if the County would be willing to adopt a tax that applied to the urbanizing areas, and hoped the board would be willing to go that far if it was unwilling to adopt a gas tax that was applied countywide. Ms. Nathanson thought the staff had made a case for the solution being proposed. She said that the maintenance backlog was a hidden problem, and it took time to build community understanding of the issues involved. The problem was there, growing bigger, and it would be worse in the future. However, she did not think residents acknowledged the problem as sufficiently serious to begin to pay for it now through a TSMF. Ms. Nathanson thought the City needed to start work to begin to address the maintenance backlog. She was more confident MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 12 Work Session about the likely community support for a gas tax, and suggested a nickel rather than four cents per gallon. Ms. Nathanson pointed to other taxing measures proposed over the last 12 months and those anticipated over the next 12 months, and questioned how much more local government could ask voters to pay. Ms. Nathanson was not willing to forward the TSMF proposal at this time. Mr. Rayor also thanked staff for its work. He suggested three potential changes to the ordinance regarding the TSMF: 1) add a subsection 3 to Section 7.750 that discusses efficiency in procuring services and stipulate the funds will be spent on paving; 2) add a subsection (g) to Section 7.765 that stated rates would be adjusted as other revenue sources were realized and revise subsection (2) to indicate that rates would not be supplemented by other revenue forms; and 3) revise Section 7.765(2) to list the size of the residence and the number of bedrooms so these can be included if staff does come to the conclusion that they correlate with transportation usage. Regarding implementation of the fee, Mr. Rayor said the council should be discussing the number and forms of taxes that have been initiated, and how best to approach this one. He was leaning toward administrative implementation of the tax because using the streets is a cost that has been traditionally subsidized, and now the community must pay the piper. He preferred to see the needed funds realized through a countywide gas tax, but did not see that happening. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the County's involvement in any gas tax proposal. Mr. Carlson said that staff would take into consideration Mr. Rayor's suggestions regarding the ordinance, and incorporate them where appropriate. The ordinance could be further amended by the council following the public hearing. Mayor Torrey asked how the proposed TSMF ordinance affected the University of Oregon and the school districts. Mr. Carlson said they were all addressed by the ordinance. Mr. Corey said that the University would be assessed on the order of $100,000 to $120,000 annually; the 4J School District would be assessed about $50,000, and Bethel School District about $15,000 to $20,000. Mayor Torrey said there was never a good time to ask the voters for more money. However, he believed Ms. Nathanson's points about the number of money measures offered to the voters were well-taken. He was leaning against implementing a tax by ordinance. Mayor Torrey said he was not afraid of asking the voters what they thought. Mayor Torrey thought a gas tax the best approach because of the "user pays" approach it represented. He supported a TSMF if staff could identify fees that were currently being paid that were equal to the amount that would be charged the citizens, and eliminate those fees. Mayor Torrey believed a local approach was needed because a State solution was not forthcoming. Mayor Torrey wanted to see more money for capital improvements, and questioned where the City could find the money to build new roads in areas that were not the responsibility of other jurisdictions. He did not think the council would get voter support for a future money measure to fund new road capacity if it passed the ordinances before it. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor's statements, with the exception of his remarks related to funding for new capital improvements. She said that the construction of new capital improvements without adequate maintenance funding was how the community got into the situation it was in. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 13 Work Session Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Carlson that the trip generation numbers before the council were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual. Ms. Bettman said that a large auto attractor like a building materials store should be charged commensurate with its impact. She asked how such businesses were addressed in the materials before the council. Ms. Bettman said that the local travel behavior survey referred to in the materials was over ten years old and encouraged that a new survey be done. Regarding potential fee reductions associated with transportation demand management efforts, Ms. Bettman said that she would like to see language in the ordinance that addressed demonstrated results from such efforts as opposed to simply allowing for adjustments because employers had, for example, a bus pass program, even if no one used it. Ms. Bettman called for a sunset provision to be included in the ordinance after the City reached appropriate maintenance levels. Alternatively, the fee could be reduced at that point. She also wanted a provision that stated the intent of the City was to use existing resources now available to fund OM&P, and that TSMF was intended to supplement those dollars. Mr. Rayor said current residents should pay for ©M&P for the current system, but not for expansion of the system, which should be paid for by new development. He did not know of another way to pay for system expansion other than outside, supplemental funding. Mr. Rayor asked if staff had heard from the Chamber of Commerce or the Lane County Homebuilders Association regarding the proposed ordinances. He said that the ordinances would affect the cost of living, but not the cost of a new home, and the council needed to be clear who was affected and why. Mr. Corey said that staff received input from a variety of sources. He did not know the chamber's position. Mr. Rayor requested copies of the input gathered through the public outreach process. Mr. Corey said that staff could provide a compilation of the written responses, but cautioned that the written responses were not representative of all the input received. Mr. Kelly hoped that the staff would work with the councilors to introduce amendments to the TSMF ordinance regarding the suggested provisions that staff chose not to incorporate. He also asked if the ordinance regarding the TSMF needed to be revised to indicate that the funding could be used for alleys as well as streets. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to conduct a public hearing on July 22, 2002, on an ordinance concerning transportation system maintenance fees. Mr. Carlson said that the purpose of the public hearing was to elicit the type of response in which Mr. Rayor was interested. He believed that the council had discussed the subject to the degree possible. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion to hold a public hearing but said it did not imply support for either ordinance. She wanted to hear more from the public about whether the need was understood. Mr. Rayor concurred, and said he reserved the right to request an additional public hearing at a later time. Ms. Taylor indicated opposition to the motion, although she might have supported it if the public hearing was to occur in September rather than July. She noted that funding options were not MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 14 Work Session discussed at the informational meeting that she attended, although the presentation was good and the need for street maintenance made clear. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Corey that changes to the ordinances would be incorporated before the public hearing. She said she did not support the ordinance as she thought the council needed more time, and she agreed with Ms. Taylor about the scheduling of the public hearing. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Carlson said that the Springfield City Council was holding a work session on similar ordinances on July 22. Mr. Carlson did not know when Springfield would hold a public hearing. Mr. Pap~ preferred to move in a parallel track with Springfield. The motion passed, 5:2, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to conduct a public hearing on July 22, 2002, on an ordinance concerning a business license tax on motor vehicle fuel dealers. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Corey said that the ordinance addressed the question of what was delivered to City service stations and what was delivered to noncity service stations through the records process. Mr. Pap~ opposed the motion, saying that the council needed more time to consider the issue. He preferred to postpone a public hearing until September. The motion failed, 5:2; Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner voting yes. The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 15 Work Session