Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: February 26, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2007, Process Session, January 22, 2007, Work Session, and January 22, 2007, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. January 10, 2007, Process Session B. January 22, 2007, Work Session C. January 22, 2007, City Council Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070226\S0702262A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 10, 2007–Process Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2007\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\cc070110process.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 2/1/07rmaDraft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library th 100 West 10 Avenue January 10, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Betty Taylor. ABSENT: Chris Pryor EXECUTIVE STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Taylor, Angel Jones, Jim Carlson, Susan Muir, Randy Groves, Lauren Chouinard, Kurt Corey, Bob Lehner, Renée Grube. City Council Process Session Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Process Session of the Eugene City Council. She introduced Betsy Shepard, who was the facilitator for the meeting. Mary Walston and Beth Forrest of the City Manager's Office were present as support staff. Ms. Shepard reviewed the suggested “norms” for the meeting: ? Listen with respect—no interrupting, no talking over, disagree agreeably ? No personal attacks ? Try things on for size ? Stay on task ? Value differences ? Be open and honest ? Look for opportunities to agree ? Strive for consensus 1. Council Operating Agreements ? A Review and History Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston provided a brief history of the council operating agreements with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She had reviewed the archives and found the council operating agreements from 1985 and after. She noted that many of the issues that the council addressed in the late 1980s, including placing items on a council agenda, staff assistance for councilors, state and federal lobbying, and reimbursement procedures, were similar to the topics the council addressed MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 1 Process Session at current process sessions. She underscored that over the years the focus of the agreements had not changed very much. Ms. Walston related that the public hearing process had evolved over the years to include time limits. She noted that the Public Forum was created in 1997. Ms. Walston stated that she had an archive of old council process agendas that were available for council review. Ms. Taylor asked why the three-minute time limit had been imposed. Ms. Walston replied that the Wednesday sessions used to have a two-hour limit and the very first item had been the Items from the Mayor and Council. She said this item would sometimes take as long as 45 minutes; so, in order to control that portion of the meeting, the council voted in a time limit. 2. Future Council Meeting Schedules: Work Sessions, Council Meetings, Workshops, Etc. Ms. Shepard said the first issue had to do with timing and any issues councilors wished to bring up related to timing and schedule. Ms. Ortiz had an item that did not relate to schedules. She recalled the discussion the council had regarding the councilor notification of issues. She wanted to be told in advance of press reports on large issues in the community. She said it was hard to advocate for the City and to assure citizens that staff members were doing their jobs when one did not know what was going on. City Manager Taylor said any time there was contact between staff and the media, staff tried to provide the information through the council newsletter and regular memoranda. He asked what sorts of events she wished further notification for. Ms. Ortiz replied that she would want advanced notification when staff members were arrested, when someone was shot by the police, or when high ranking personnel were fired for reasons the press considered newsworthy. In response to a question from City Manager Taylor, Ms. Ortiz clarified that she was referring specifically to fire personnel who were fired. She wanted to be able to say to people that the City did not certain types of behavior. She felt the councilors should know the behaviors for which personnel were being fired. City Manager Taylor stressed that this was a delicate issue because many of the things that would be part of a disciplinary action were part of a personnel record that was between the individual and his or her supervisor, and was therefore not releasable. He stated that it would take a determination by the District Attorney or an Oregon Court of Law to make the records available. Ms. Taylor agreed that councilors should be apprized of anything that would hit the newspapers. She thought that not only should the councilors receive a message, but there should be staff follow-up to ensure they received the message. She related that she had first heard about a large real estate deal in the downtown area by reading the paper. She believed if something was going to attract interest, all nine elected officials should know about it. City Manager Taylor responded that in the example she cited he had sent all councilors and the Mayor a memorandum either by fax or by courier before there was a press contact and then staff had also sent a memorandum to the council and Mayor that there had been a press contact. Ms. Taylor said she wanted a follow-up phone call to ensure that she had received the memoranda. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 2 Process Session Mayor Piercy said the media piece sent by staff was good but it did not call out something that staff thought the councilors might be asked about. She thought it would be beneficial to identify issues that were likely to be of interest in the community. Ms. Solomon thought City Manager Taylor and staff had done a great job of letting the council know of what potential questions might come up as a result of media contacts. She was not willing to ask staff to call the councilors individually to make sure the councilors had read their emails. She said at some point the councilors had to take some responsibility for doing this. Ms. Bettman called this an ongoing problem. She thought the media list was “so generalized that it was difficult to discern” the difference between a larger issue and a smaller issue. She had been frustrated when running into people on boards and commissions, people in neighborhood groups, and people in the business community who have “all kinds of information.” She asserted that though they were told there were things that were not okay to share with councilors, she ran into people “who have vast knowledge of details” and who expressed surprise that she did not know what they knew. She said it “was a paradigm here” that the information was not completely flowing. She recalled that Jim Johnson called councilors about major issues during his tenure as city manager. Ms. Ortiz said she was just asking for something more than the current practice. She felt staff did a good job with the emails and newsletters, but she wanted to know when something critical happened that might garner a lot of community interest in a negative way. City Manager Taylor responded that it was difficult to know what issues would rise to a critical level. Mr. Zelenka said he did not read the newspaper until the end of the day. He thought that if something was newsworthy the council should be notified of it in advance. City Manager Taylor responded that this was the current procedure as the councilors were issued an email every night that said what media contacts had occurred. He cited an example from earlier in the day and the email that had been generated as a result of the press contact. Mayor Piercy thought the email should include more information. Ms. Taylor reiterated that she had found out the City Manager secured the option to buy downtown property from the newspaper. City Manager Taylor reiterated that staff had sent a memorandum by courier and fax to everyone and had included the information in the Thursday packet. Ms. Taylor underscored that she wanted to have a follow-up call to make sure she received the information. She noted that when the recent staff changes occurred, the councilors received phone calls about it. Ms. Ortiz said she was trying to encourage the process. She cited the example of a recent police shooting and commented that it would have been good to know something about the situation. Ms. Shepard asked if the councilors meant they wanted to expand the details and then have a phone call. Ms. Ortiz responded that this would have been beneficial in the case of the shooting. Ms. Bettman said the way to look at it was that the elected officials were the public face of the City. She averred that when approached with an issue, if a councilor did not know how to respond it did not look good. She thought it was a “no-brainer” that the council should have been notified immediately regarding the shooting. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 3 Process Session City Manager Taylor stated that if the councilors had questions they should call him. He was available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He underscored that the councilors had his cell phone number, his email address, his office number, and his home phone number. Ms. Shepard asked if the council had issues on council meeting schedules. Ms. Bettman stated that she had two small issues. She wished to emphasize that she did not want to add any more evening meetings. The other item Ms. Bettman wished to bring up was the desire to have an inventory of motions after meetings, what the motions were and how the votes fell, so that councilors could check to ensure things were recorded correctly and also to use as a quick reference. Ms. Walston requested clarification on whether Ms. Bettman meant major motions or all motions, including procedural motions, friendly amendments, and so on. Ms. Bettman responded that friendly amendments could be significant. Ms. Walston noted that with the advent of the Webcast, staff could review the meeting itself to check anything that was not readily understood. Ms. Taylor agreed that knowing who voted would be helpful. She also did not want an increase in evening meetings. She said as councilors, they should attend as many cultural and civic events in the evenings as possible. Additionally, she noted that the Wednesday work sessions had been reduced to 90 minutes at former Councilor Gary Papé’s request. She wondered if the council should shift back to two-hour meetings for those work sessions. Mayor Piercy stated that now that half of the councilors had jobs during the day, it was important to strike a balance. Ms. Ortiz supported the idea of having a summary of votes. She added that she had changed her schedule to work around the council schedule. She said the balance of work, children, and being a councilor was a challenge. Mr. Poling stated that Council Coordinator Lynda Rose had done a good job of writing the council summaries. He agreed that a summary of votes would be beneficial, but he thought it should include any specific directions made to the City Manager over the course of the meeting. Ms. Bettman also wanted to reduce the number of process sessions in which the council engaged. She thought three sessions were too much. She suggested they change the number to two or one per year. Ms. Taylor recommended that the council get rid of the extra Monday meeting dedicated to public hearing meetings. Ms. Solomon pointed out that the council had just instituted the public hearing meetings. City Manager Taylor recalled that the thinking behind the decision to try a night dedicated to public hearings had been that the council would hold those meetings for a year and then assess how well it was working. He noted that the Budget Committee session was beginning and the meeting devoted to public hearings had heretofore not been run concurrent with the budget meetings. Ms. Bettman recalled that the reason they changed the public hearing process to a separate Monday night meeting was that so many of the public hearings had been postponed and the council had experienced some MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 4 Process Session “horrendous” meetings. She agreed that it was an extra night but it relieved some of the pressure the council previously experienced. Mr. Clark said in looking at what was best for the public, the change to more frequent shorter meetings seemed to be a prudent move. Mayor Piercy commented that people thanked her for holding a separate meeting for public hearings. She observed that several items had been brought up at the process session thus far but had not been resolved. Mr. Poling expressed a preference for having two process sessions. Mr. Clark commented that it would be better to hold the session in a month other than January because of the timing of the goal-setting retreat. Ms. Shepard asked for a show of thumbs up or thumbs down for having two process sessions instead of three. The council indicated its preference for two process sessions per year by a show of thumbs up. City Manager Taylor acknowledged Mr. Clark’s desire to hold the process session in a different month. He pointed out that he preferred to have the process session in January when there were new members on the council. Ms. Shepard asked the council to indicate its preference for when the next process session should convene. The council indicated its preference to bypass the process session planned for April and to hold the next process session in September. Ms. Bettman requested that the process sessions be held during work sessions if at all possible. Ms. Shepard ascertained from the council that there was majority support for this. Ms. Bettman noted that the council had not weighed in on her request to be provided with a summary of motions after a council meeting. City Manager Taylor asked how much of the friendly amendments Ms. Bettman wanted to capture. Ms. Bettman suggested that a motion be restated prior to a vote. Mr. Zelenka agreed that the genesis of a motion seemed important. City Manager Taylor observed that a friendly amendment was one elected official negotiating with another elected official. Ms. Bettman said as long as the friendly amendments were captured in the minutes, it was adequate given that the motion was what was voted upon. Mr. Clark felt it was important to document the nuances. He asked if there was ever difficulty with the Webcast. Ms. Walston responded that it was her understanding that the tapes and DVDs of meetings were available for two years. Mr. Poling reiterated his suggestion that the directions given by councilors to the City Manager be captured in the summary. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 5 Process Session Ms. Bettman averred that such directions were in the minutes. She asked Ms. Walston for clarification on the policy for keeping recordings of the meetings. Ms. Walston replied that minutes were a part of the permanent public record, the DVDs could be kept forever, in theory, but the previous technology had utilized videotapes and they had a shelf life of two years. Ms. Bettman felt the records should be kept in perpetuity. Ms. Shepard asked the council to finish up the issue of the post-meeting vote summary. Ms. Solomon asked if this would lead to an expectation of Ms. Rose to watch the Webcasts to recapture the motion and votes. Mr. Poling thought the summary would reduce Ms. Rose’s workload after council meetings. Ms. Solomon suggested that the Mayor say out loud who had voted in the affirmative and who had voted in opposition. Ms. Walston suggested having the Mayor restate the motion and to recite the votes. She said sometimes it was unclear what exactly was being voted on and, in the McNutt Room especially, it was not always readily apparent how the councilors had voted. Ms. Shepard observed that Ms. Rose was not present to provide input as to how this change could impact her work. City Manager Taylor felt that it would be a shorter version of the current summary that Ms. Rose generated. The Minutes Recorder interjected that hearing how the votes fell would be very beneficial to the minutes process. Mayor Piercy indicated she would state votes for the record. Ms. Bettman reiterated her preference to keep the record of votes into perpetuity. She stated that DVDs did not degrade. City Manager Taylor said he would look into storage for the DVDs. Mayor Piercy noted that Ms. Ortiz had brought up her desire to receive better notice about newsworthy items. She asked if the council should give a thumbs up regarding this. City Manager Taylor reiterated that the councilors could not be privy to information regarding the dismissal of an employee by law. Ms. Ortiz stressed that her intent was that councilors be provided some advance notice of an item that was newsworthy. Mr. Chouinard stated, regarding the one situation pertaining to a dismissal in the Fire Department, reporters had called City Hall and staff had refused to discuss it, as per the law. The complainant in that incident then went to the press and did not communicate her intent to do so to the City. Ms. Ortiz asked how she was supposed to deal with the community when such issues arose. She acknowl- edged that hiring and firing was not her purview. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 6 Process Session Mr. Clark averred that the differentiation of what should rise to the level of a phone call was whether it was a front page news story versus an event that might fall onto lesser pages of the newspaper. Mr. Chouinard said he did not know how to fix a situation in which the City could not speak on a personnel issue but the media found someone outside the City organization who was willing to speak on it. City Manager Taylor asked for further clarification. He said when someone was hurt or killed as a result of police action the council was notified. He noted that he received a report from Fire Chief Groves on structure fires and wondered if the council wished to have this information as well. Ms. Ortiz stressed that she was asking to be briefed in advance of items that would cause repercussions in the community. She said there was a threshold and she believed that staff knew what it was. She indicated that she would like to know whenever shots were fired. Ms. Bettman commented that she had “resigned [herself] to the fact [she] was not getting any information.” She felt any time a reporter called City Hall for comment the council should be made aware of it. She said one of the reasons the City Manager was the head of the organization was that he had discretionary judgment. She thought it would be better for the City Manager to err on the side of caution when it came to what to bring to the attention of the councilors. Ms. Taylor concurred. She echoed the statements of Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz. Mr. Clark called it an issue of political judgment. He said if something was politically sensitive it was more likely to be politically controversial. Mayor Piercy did not want people to start “stirring” on why the elected officials were not responding; she wanted to try to get out in front of issues in order to provide a “calming comment” or words to convey that they knew what was happening and were working on it. City Manager Taylor stated that it took him approximately three hours to give everyone a call. Mayor Piercy responded that he should call her and she would call the council officers, Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor, and they could initiate calls to the others. City Manager Taylor surmised that the council would prefer a call over an email in the face of a critical event. Ms. Taylor suggested that if the City Manager sent an email, that the email should require a response in order to confirm that councilors had read the email. Ms. Shepard ascertained that the councilors felt their concerns had been heard and that there would be work to improve that. Ms. Shepard called for a break at 7:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened after ten minutes. Mayor Piercy remarked that Ms. Taylor had suggested a return to two-hour work sessions on Wednesdays. Ms. Shepard called for thumbs up or thumbs down on the suggestion for a longer Wednesday work session. The council majority gave it thumbs down. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 7 Process Session 3. Parliamentary Issues Ms. Shepard asked what issues the councilors wished to address. Ms. Taylor commented that on a couple of occasions she had sent an intended motion out in advance and another councilor had sent a similar motion. She felt that she had then not been allowed to make her motion. She said the most recent instance of this had to do with the transportation maintenance funding. Mayor Piercy remarked that she was unaware that a motion sent in advance would be considered first. Ms. Bettman observed that it was a courtesy to the other councilors to send a motion in advance, but she did not know if there had been a discussion of what chronological order the motions would be presented in. Ms. Solomon agreed that councilors send motions in advance as a courtesy, but she did not believe that was a guarantee that a motion would be presented or would be presented in the order it had been submitted. She thought that after discussion if there were four motions that could be potentially placed on the table and after the discussion it became clear that the majority felt one was the right motion over the other three, then it was somewhat of a waste of time to consider three motions that lacked support just because of the order in which they were submitted. Ms. Bettman noted that a councilor had the right to have a motion be heard. Ms. Taylor asserted that according to Robert’s Rules, one could make an amendment to an amendment. Mr. Clark observed that it was sometimes challenging for the Mayor to track the queue, especially when a motion was made and then an amendment was made. Mayor Piercy agreed that when there was a queue to speak to a motion and an amendment was made, it was sometimes difficult to discern who was going to speak to what. Ms. Shepard asked if there was council agreement on making amendments to an amendment. Ms. Solomon clarified that this could only be done once. Mayor Piercy said that in most cases she would honor motions that were submitted in advance, but she reserved the right to opt not to do so. Ms. Bettman understood that the council president would put the motion as crafted by staff on the table first and, in the course of the discussion, substitute motions or amendments could be placed on the table. Regarding an amendment to an amendment, she acknowledged that it was within the parameters of Robert’s Rules but she advised the council to be careful what it asked for. She said there had been many times when she wanted to amend an amendment, but it often made a complicated process even more “arcane and complicated.” She averred that it was hard for the public to track what the council was doing as it was. Mr. Zelenka concurred. He stated that having one issue to consider at a time it made it easier to track. Mayor Piercy asked if it was the council’s wish to continue with the current practice or to change the practice. MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 8 Process Session Ms. Shepard ascertained by a show of thumbs up that the majority of the council wished to continue with the current practice. 4. Other Issues Mr. Clark asked what guidelines there were regarding how one councilor spoke regarding other councilors’ opinions and beliefs. Ms. Ortiz said the guiding rule was that one should treat others as they wanted to be treated. She viewed speaking badly about a councilor as she viewed speaking badly about any other person for any reason. Ms. Bettman averred that the councilors were more accountable to the public than to one another. She said one could not control the personalities of other people. She noted that when she was asked about the opinions or views of other councilors by a member of the press, she advised them that she did not speak for others. Mayor Piercy noted that she wanted to make two changes. She intended to read the Consent Calendar aloud at meetings because people in the audience, and especially the television audience, did not always know what was on it. Another change she intended to make was that she planned to ask the council president and vice president to consider placing on the agenda for discussion any bills from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) that had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She also wanted to discuss the council’s position and how to improve the meeting process. Ms. Bettman asserted that these were duties and responsibilities that the council officers had “heretofore not enjoyed.” She felt this should be formalized in the process agreement. She believed that the “enhancement” of the duties of the City Council officers was a “big discussion.” She said at present the council officers did not have the authority to block things or place items on the agenda. Mayor Piercy said she was looking at this as a way to place motions on the table and she wished to discuss any CCIGR bill on which there was a split vote. Ms. Bettman responded that the procedure, as it stood, had been for the councilors to take responsibility and review the bills and then, if they chose, they could call out a bill. She saw the change the Mayor was proposing as redundant and a layer of bureaucracy that was not needed. Mayor Piercy responded that it was fine to choose a different way of conducting the CCIGR work. From her perspective, she wanted to highlight the things that did not have the unanimous support of the CCIGR in order to see if it was the will of the council to discuss them further. She underscored that the direction for the City’s intergovernmental work should come from the whole council and not just from the CCIGR. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman. She thought the Mayor’s proposal would be time-consuming. She reiterated that it was up to the councilors to read the information from the CCIGR and to call out anything that merited further discussion. Ms. Walston related that the new Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, planned to provide a weekly newsletter to the council. Ms. Bettman thought the authority of the council officers should be discussed in the process session. She wanted to maintain the current process until there was another process session to discuss it. Mayor Piercy MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 9 Process Session responded that she intended to meet with the council officers prior to meetings. She intended to ask them to bring forward bills that received a split vote in the CCIGR. She said it was up to them to say yes or no. Ms. Bettman asked if that was the only item Mayor Piercy would discuss with the council officers. Mayor Piercy replied that she wanted to meet with them regularly before council meetings. She said Mr. Pryor and Ms. Ortiz had expressed a desire to be more engaged in the ongoing process of the council. Ms. Bettman called this “pretty big.” Mayor Piercy disagreed. She said it was just people talking with each other and council officers trying to figure out how to reach out to the other councilors on an ongoing basis and to have more communication. Ms. Ortiz commented that she wanted to be more supportive of the Mayor and the council in her role as council president. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council January 10, 2007 Page 10 Process Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 22, 2007—Work Session TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/25 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 22, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy announced that she would be attending the United States Conference of Mayors in Washing- ton, DC, on January 23, 2007. She thanked councilors for their participation in the recent two-day retreat to consider council goals. She said that the council’s goals included continuing goals on race, homeless initiatives, City Hall, neighborhood empowerment, arts and outdoors, and a hospital, and new goals related to a sustainability initiative, downtown initiative, police initiative, and transportation initiative. Mr. Pryor reported that the Human Services Commission (HSC) met earlier and began the process of determining how to make service cuts. He said that the HSC and the many agencies it funded would lose a significant amount of resources in the current budget cycle, both from one-time funding and County funding. He said that precipitated a conversation about which services could be cut and the extent of those cuts as the commission faced a growing need and declining revenue. He said the Council Committee on Intergovern- mental Relations would meet on January 23 and there were bills to consider. He encouraged councilors to let committee members know of any specific legislation they might be interested in tracking. Mr. Clark agreed with Mayor Piercy that the retreat was productive and he was pleased that it resulted in many issues on which there was consensus. Mr. Zelenka also expressed his appreciation for the retreat and said he enjoyed the process. He announced the first Lane County Public Energy Forum would occur from 7 to 9 p.m. on January 23 at the First United Methodist Church and encouraged people to attend. He also encouraged visiting the display of flags on the University of Oregon campus in commemoration of those who had died during the Iraq War. Ms. Taylor observed that Portland had recently reduced its tax on small local businesses and Eugene had no such tax. Mr. Poling was pleased that there would be a work session later in the month to “fine tune” the results of the goal-setting retreat. He thanked Public Works employees and public safety personnel for their efforts to MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 1 Work Session keep the community safe during the recent storm. He noted that the EmX system began operations on January 14 and reminded everyone that the route from Eugene to Springfield was the first phase of a regional route. He said the initial travel times might not be as short as hoped but this was the initial phase of the project and the long-term the goal of the system was to reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway and increase ridership. He thought that once people became accustomed to the new system and the second route running from downtown Springfield to the RiverBend complex was in operation, the impact would be visible. Ms. Ortiz stated that the retreat was enjoyable and productive and she appreciated the opportunity to th become better acquainted with the new council members. She acknowledged the 34 anniversary of the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision. She described the various Martin Luther King Day events that she attended in the community. She said the Police Commission identified several issues to work on during the coming year, including use of force, how police policies affect the mental health community, and policies related to domestic violence. She said the Police Department was implementing the new Lexipol policy development system. City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked the council on behalf of the executive management team for the time and energy it put into developing goals. He said the follow-up session to refine goals was scheduled for January 31 and apologized for the many meetings that had occurred during the week. He noted that new cameras were recently installed in the McNutt Room that would provide better resolution for streaming videos of council meeting. Ms. Bettman reminded councilors that when the library levy was placed on the ballot there was some discussion of cutting library services. From her perspective the City was in a more positive situation than it would have been if it had gone out with a full levy as she did not think it would have passed. She was grateful the voters passed the reduced levy and supported the principle of ramping it down and incorporating library services, which were ongoing services, into the General Fund. She said her motion was intended to address the concern expressed by councilors about preserving library services. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to hold current library services harmless in the City Manager’s proposed budget and to the extent projections on future budgets are relevant, direct him to assume that the cur- rent level of library services and operations will continue without cuts or reduc- tions. Ms. Bettman said that library services was an ongoing service supported by the community and therefore was important to keep it in the budget. She reminded the council that the City Manager’s budget included many service additions that were processed and accepted before there was a decision regarding the Library and it was the City’s adopted financial policy that ongoing services would be funded through the budget before new services were added. She preferred to see all of the additions revisited and new services removed if necessary in order to hold the Library harmless. City Manager Taylor said the budget was still in the formative stages and there were $7.1 million in decision packages that included everything funded in the current level of service, such as additional police officers, police auditor, and park maintenance. He said the multi-year financial plan contained a strategy to incorporate $2.5 million per year over the next several years using reserves so that in three or four years library services would be fully funded within the projected budget. He said if the council wished to add recreation services at the level proposed by the Budget Committee or make progress on police staffing, an MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 2 Work Session office of sustainability, or just include library services as they were currently funded by the levy, it would be necessary to use reserves, find new revenue sources, or establish other priorities and make strategic reductions in services. Mr. Poling stated that he could not support the motion because any councilor could make a similar motion with respect to his or her favorite department without knowing what the proposed budget was. He was a — supporter of the Library; but, putting library services above public safetyfire, emergency services, police — and public workswas a major mistake. He was also opposed to such a motion before a budget had been proposed because budgets fluctuated from year to year and it limited the council’s ability to decide where to make necessary cuts. He felt that library services were very worthwhile to the community but did not rise to the level of needed services such as public safety. Ms. Taylor asked about the extent of the cuts being contemplated to library services. City Manager Taylor replied that no reductions in library services were currently being considered, but there was a range of potential cuts that could avoid eliminating branch libraries. He said there would be a systematic review of all City services as part of a two-year strategy for balancing the budget. Ms. Taylor asked if the council’s adoption of a police priority meant even more money would be spent on police than previously planned. City Manager Taylor said it was difficult for him to see how in the budget for FY08 any police staffing could be added if 100 percent of Library costs were picked up. He said whether the council’s adoption of a police priority increased the commitment to police funding was a discussion for the council and the Budget Committee. Mr. Pryor stated he thought the subject of the motion should be brought before the Budget Committee and not decided ahead of time by the council. He was interested in having the City Manager prepare the best budget he believed possible under the circumstances and then have the discussion of that occur at the Budget Committee where everyone was present and all options were on the table. He said the value of the Budget Committee was that everyone could put forth their opinions and he was reluctant to place limitations on that discussion. He could not support the motion and encouraged the City Manager to prepare the best budget possible with the guidance already provided by the council. Mr. Clark said that library services were very important to him and he heard frequently from residents of the north central part of the City how important the Sheldon branch was to them. He heard in the City Manager’s discussion of strategies that branch library services might or might not be considered. He did not want to short-circuit the established budget process or tie the manager’s hands for developing creative options for funding all services adequately or take away the valuable input from the citizen members of the Budget Committee. He suggested at some point the priority matrix process could be used to determine how services could be funded. Mr. Zelenka recalled that the City Manager indicated the budget would be balanced by using reserves. City Manager Taylor said it was likely that using reserves would be necessary to maintain the budget for next year. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the plan was to fund half of library services from the levy and half from the General Fund and, over the next four years, phase all library services into the General Fund. He asked if cuts to library services would be unnecessary if no more services were added to the budget. City Manager Taylor replied that was not the case; just to fund the additions made last year with respect to the police auditor and police staffing meant at least $1 million of annualized costs going forward. He said that other MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 3 Work Session additions approved by the council, such as the office of sustainability and increases in the cost of some services were trying to be resolved in a budget that met the needs of FY08, but established a pattern for a prudent, sustainable budget over the next several years. He said that process would take longer than the current fiscal year to complete and was a discussion the council and Budget Committee needed to have before development of the FY09 budget. Mr. Zelenka asked why the levy did not cover the entire funding needed for library services over the next four years in order to avoid making any cuts. City Manager Taylor said the council’s intent, supported by the voters, was not to continue funding library services through levies but there was no predictable revenue stream in the future that would allow maintenance of the current mix of services across the board. He said the City faced a number of budgeting dilemmas including how to absorb half of library services into the General Fund, how to fund recreation services no longer supported by the school levy, fund police patrol staffing, park maintenance, the transportation system, and other items identified for attention in the near term. Mr. Zelenka said his understanding of the police staffing priority was not to increase staffing beyond what had already been decided upon but rather to direct resource priorities to community policing and property crime reduction. Ms. Bettman asserted this was the established process. She said the next Budget Committee meeting was February 7, 2007. She notified people at the last Budget Committee meeting of her intent to make the motion because there was not time to consider it at the meeting. She said that giving the City Manager direction on the proposed budget as soon as possible was something the council and the Budget Committee had requested in the past. She said the more than $7 million added to the budget, when weighed against things like public safety and library services, would not have emerged from the priority process if one had been done. Ms. Taylor stated that the time to discuss the budget was before it was in a book in front of the council. She reiterated that the City needed new sources of revenue such as the Portland business tax to avoid financial emergencies. She hoped that eventually new sources of revenue that were equitable would be considered. Mr. Zelenka supported the motion because when he was campaigning for the library levy he told people that the levy was being reduced by half and implicit in that was an understanding that library services would be maintained at their current level. He questioned why the levy would not have been for a larger percentage if cuts were going to be considered. Ms. Ortiz supported the motion with the thought that the issue would still go before the Budget Committee. She felt that the motion simply directed the City Manager to provide that scenario but she expected that other scenarios would be provided to the Budget Committee. Ms. Solomon pointed out that the motion did not request other scenarios; it only directed the City Manager to hold library services harmless in the proposed budget. Mayor Piercy commented that if, in fact, the motion simply stated it was the wish of the council to hold libraries harmless and work toward that goal, which she felt was already the City Manager’s intention in balance with other things, it would still be the Budget Committee’s decision. She would support the motion with the understanding the decision was not being made now and would be made by the Budget Committee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman said the motion required that the initial proposed budget hold library services harmless and that budget would go through the full budget process. Ms. Taylor stated that ultimately it was the council’s decision, not the Budget Committee’s. The vote to hold library services harmless in the budget was a 4:4 tie; Councilors Bettman, Zelenka, Ortiz and Taylor voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Clark, Solomon and Poling voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the mo- tion passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Poling remarked that the council voted on the Spay and Neuter Voucher Program several years ago and asked for a status report on the program that indicated how much revenue had been collected and how it was used. B. WORK SESSION: Funding Strategies for Transportation System Operations, Maintenance and Preservation City Manager Taylor said that when the council considered an ordinance to establish a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) in November 2006, it was tabled until 2007 with the direction that staff develop a proposed funding strategy that included several components such as a TSMF, gas tax, bond levy and commuter tax. He introduced Public Works Director Kurt Corey to outline strategy options for the council’s consideration to address the backlog of road maintenance and preservation projects. Mr. Corey provided an overview of the transportation system funding shortfall and options for addressing that shortfall that had been considered since 2001. He said there was a current backlog of more than $100 million in pavement preservation projects, with a projected FY08 operating deficit of nearly $1.5 million for operation and maintenance activities in the Road Fund. He described the proposed funding options for addressing the backlog and funding shortfall developed in accordance with council direction: ? $.03 per gallon gas tax increase, remove February 2008 sunset on current $.02 per gallon gas tax, with monies earmarked for operations and maintenance – would close the gap for operations and maintenance funding ? Capital local option levy for the November 2008 ballot – no revenue target identified but for each $1 million of revenue generated annually the average taxpayer’s cost would be approximately $12 ? Ordinance establishing a TSMF modified to eliminate the flat base rate component – no revenue target identified but $5 million funding gap would represent approximately a $3.35 cost per month for the average property owner ? Commuter tax based on persons who work but do not live in a jurisdiction based on either the concept of a payroll tax, income tax on employees or business privilege tax – Eugene would be the first community in the state to enact a commuter tax. A $50 per employee business privilege tax would generate approximately $4 million annually; a payroll tax of one-quarter of one percent would generate the same level of revenue, as would an employee income tax of two-tenths of one percent. ? Garbage truck tax – documentation of the effect of trucks on residential streets was available and could provide a rationale for a surcharge. A ten percent tax would generate approximately $1 mil- lion annually. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor commented that business trips were only a fraction of the miles driven in a community; the majority of trips related to family and personal activities. Relative to the issue of who should pay for —— transportation system improvementsusers or the community as a wholehe said the transportation system was a civic need and community responsibility like police, fire, and education. He said demand management could meet part of the goal by reducing vehicle trips but could not address all transportation system needs. He agreed with the importance of accommodating bicycles and pedestrians but the $110 million backlog of street projects required that to be the focus of the City’s attention. Regarding one-time versus ongoing expenses, he said the City had to develop a mixed funding strategy that considered all of the options presented by staff. Ms. Taylor stated she was pleased the commuter tax was listed as a possibility and hoped it would be seriously considered. She did not feel that decreasing the disposable income of nonresidents was relevant as other taxes within the City decreased the disposable income of residents. She strongly encouraged the commuter tax as part of the funding strategy. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that data indicated half of the 80,000 jobs in Eugene were held by nonresidents and any fee or taxed imposed would only fall on the half who lived in the City; the other half would pay nothing, but still use streets. He said that also meant the half who were taxed were subsidizing the other half who were nonresidents. He urged a funding mechanism that would provide transportation system support from both residents and nonresidents. He said the transportation system included cars, bicycles, trucks, pedestrians, and buses and that should be taken into account. He urged a connection between how the funding would be used and where it came from. He said there was a direct connection between a fuel tax and use of the streets but a tenuous connection with a property tax levy. He did not feel the value of a house or business had any relationship to use of the roads. He said the TSMF had a better connection but was not fair to those who did not drive cars on the roads and used other modes of transportation. He preferred a carbon tax or one based on miles driven. Mr. Corey observed that the idea that only those with vehicles benefited from the transportation system was at odds with the findings of an earlier Citizen Budget Subcommittee report on the issue. He said the basis of the TSMF recognized that there were people who did not drive cars but did use sidewalks, bike paths and transit and therefore the gas tax component placed a greater burden on those who used the street. He said the report concluded that everyone who lived in the City benefited from the road system through delivery of mail, goods and services, transit and other services, whether or not they drove a vehicle. Ms. Bettman noted that the $53 million backlog of preservation projects in 2001 had doubled and stated that the transportation system as designed was not sustainable and would also siphon funds from other services unless there was a way to balance funding among transportation modes. She did not think the options provided by staff accomplished that. She said the transportation system served everyone but at drastically different levels. She said what the council was trying to encourage with its long-term sustainability goals for transportation should be built into the funding strategy. She would consider options that were equitable and sustainable. Ms. Bettman said the commuter tax was defined as a tax on income but it should be a fee that paralleled whatever fee was allocated to residents of the City who paid a tax to fund transportation. Mr. Clark said he believed the transportation system as a whole was a public utility and residents expected that it would be maintained as a basic service. He agreed that residents and nonresidents should share the burden of supporting the system. He thought the idea of a garbage truck surcharge was interesting as a more user-oriented approach to charging people for using the road. He suggested other users for which a similar approach could be considered such as other utility providers, school buses or other buses. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Solomon stated that the problem was not that the transportation system was unsustainable, rather that revenues from other federal and state sources had decreased; it was funding that was unsustainable not the transportation system. She appreciated the option of a capital local option levy to add balance and stability to the funding strategy. She asked how much funding could be requested in the levy. Larry Hill, Financial Services, explained there was room within the Measure 5 rate cap for an additional capital local option levy and there would be no compression if the levy was appropriately sized. He said an average tax rate of $.75 per $1,000 of real market value could generate about $10 million annually. He said the levy was a “pay as you go” approach and unlike a bond there were no interest or issuance charges. Ms. Solomon felt there was a compelling argument for going to the voters with a capital local option levy as there did not seem to be enough support among councilors for a TSMF and the gas tax could not fill the funding gap. She hoped a TSMF would eventually be considered and that the option of a levy would be explored. Mr. Poling concurred with Ms. Solomon that it was incorrect to label the transportation system as unsustainable; the problem was that the council had lacked the courage to properly fund road repairs. He referred to a description of the levy as being for pavement reconstruction capital projects and asked if that meant roads that had to be torn down to the roadbed and rebuilt but capacity would not be added. Mr. Corey clarified that the language was a recommendation and not a limiting factor of the levy as a funding mechanism. He said that would ensure that the levy funds would be used to address the reconstruction backlog and other funding mechanisms could be used to address ongoing operations and maintenance and capital preservation. He said the levy could be used for a broader range besides reconstruction. Mr. Hill explained that a capital local option levy could be used for any capital construction that was legal under State statutes and only limited by what the council authorized it for and the use for which funds were appropriated. Mr. Poling suggested that if a levy was considered it be limited to fixing current roads and not used for adding capacity to roads or constructing entirely new roads. Referring to people who did not own or use a car, he agreed with Mr. Corey that they still benefited from having a transportation system in place. He was willing to consider reducing the burden on those people if they were required to prove limited road use, but would not consider exempting them from fees. He felt the commuter tax or employment tax was unfair as nonresidents had no voice in that. He was in favor of holding a public hearing on the gas tax but not certain if he would support the proposed increase. Mayor Piercy cautioned about the balance between a user tax on school buses and trying to put funding into the schools. Ms. Bettman thought the local option levy and a TSMF, if considered by the council, should both go on the ballot. She said how funds could be spent should be defined in the ballot measure instead of ordinance and explicitly exclude projects or components of projects that were SDC (system development charge) improvement fee eligible or assessment eligible; not just funded but eligible for funding. She asked if staff was recommending a uniform local option levy or a tax rate local option levy. Mr. Hill responded that the local option levy could be either rate-base or based upon an amount. He said the benefit of a rate-based levy was it adjusted to the increase of the value in the community and essentially indexed to growth and reflected growing demand on the community’s infrastructure. He said the benefit of a fixed amount each year was it MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 7 Work Session was a known amount and the rate decreased each year as assessed value grew, spreading more thinly across more value. He said which option to pursue was a policy decision by the council. City Manager Taylor said it was the council’s choice which levy approach to take and the amount targeted over the life of the limited levy. He said there were some practical considerations in terms of what meaningful amount of construction could be accomplished each year but staff could provide high- and low- end predictions. Ms. Bettman expressed interest in the commuter tax as a parallel fee, not as a tax on income. She said it was unfair to ask residents to be burdened with the entire cost of maintaining the infrastructure that everyone used. She said that would discourage people from living within the city limits. Mr. Zelenka appreciated Mr. Poling’s suggestion to reduce the user fee for people who did not own cars. He stated it was not the transportation system that was unsustainable; it was the financing of the system that was unsustainable. He said it was important to have a package of strategies to solve the entire funding problem and not just a piece of it. He said there was an opportunity to have an incentive to encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation; that would become even more important as the community grew and congestion increased. He agreed it was important to place a burden of proof on those would might be eligible for a reduced fee. He asked if rebates were permissible under a TSMF. Mr. Hill said that the council would need to make that determination but he thought that rebates were permitted. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that to the extent a fee for service was imposed, that rationale was undermined by an exemption of entities that used the service; therefore, finding a subsidy toward the portion of a user’s fee that the City wished to reduce would be preferable. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back creative solutions for adequately funding the transportation system for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians that collected funds proportionately or equally with residents and nonresidents that use the roads, was more consistent with the sustain- ability goal, had more direct connection to use of the roads like a carbon tax or garbage truck fee and that rebated or gave incentives to those that did not have cars or used them very little. Ms. Bettman supported the motion because it could result in a proposal that had a broader-based council support that would reflect broader community support. She was interested in other strategies discussed by the subcommittee such as regional SDCs, taxes or fees on provided parking and heavy axel fees. She said there needed to be a way to fund the bicycle system and many people had told her they would be willing to support taxes if the bike path system would benefit. Mr. Pryor appreciated the interest in a creative solution with broader options and opportunities but felt some pressure to act immediately, at least on some parts of the proposal. He would not support Mr. Zelenka’s motion but did encourage the conversation about options and would support the suggested motions. He was motivated to take action on solving the problem and liked the idea of a levy and some form of TSMF. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Pryor and said he would support a hearing on the gas tax and a resolution with regard to the levy, but would support Mr. Zelenka’s motion if it meant moving forward on a systemic approach. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she would support the motion although it was “muddying the water,” but encouraged the council to spend more time considering options for transportation system funds. Ms. Solomon said she could not support the motion because it was “muddying the water” and, while she did support the concepts identified in the motion, it did not include a capital local option levy and only directed the City Manager to bring back more options. She said that same direction had been given by the council many times in the last several years and staff had provided good ideas that the council could act upon. She felt Mr. Zelenka’s motion could increase the number of options but echoed Mr. Pryor’s comments about the need to take action now. Mayor Piercy said as much as she wanted to see the council move forward, there did not appear to be a strong majority for any option. She did not want to send out a funding strategy on which the council was divided and it was too important to not try to achieve consensus. She suggested the council form a subcommittee to work on the various ideas and try to combine them into a proposal that would garner broader support on the council. Mr. Zelenka felt that more time was needed to obtain additional information and develop a funding strategy. He felt the motions suggested in the agenda packet were premature. He wanted to avoid a piecemeal approach to transportation system funding and preferred a complete solution. Mr. Pryor said that spending more time considering the options should include a timeline. Mr. Pryor offered a friendly amendment to establish a date certain, such as in three months, for the council to act on a package proposal. Ms. Bettman said she was concerned that three months was not enough time and was more comfortable taking up the matter in September when the council returned from its break. Mr. Pryor, Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon felt September was too long to wait. Mr. Corey agreed that it would be helpful to have a council subcommittee assigned to work with staff. He felt a proposal could be developed by mid- to late-April 2007. Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said she hoped that a funding strategy would take into account broader public interests as the current options had divided support among councilors. She was in favor of a public hearing on the gas tax to determine public sentiment about removing the sunset provision and increasing the rate. Ms. Taylor stated she would support the motion and was interested in a commuter tax, a local option levy, a gas tax, and inclusion of bicycles. Mr. Clark said he would support the motion but encouraged the council to send the gas tax to a public hearing so that it was moving forward on a parallel track. The motion as amended passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to conduct a public hearing on February 20, 2007, on a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 20278, increasing the Business License Tax on Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers by three cents to the 8-cent level and repealing the sunset provision on the two-cent fuel tax increase enacted 2005, with the intent that the proceeds from the addition three cents be dedicated to funding Road Fund operations and maintenance activi- ties. Ms. Bettman asked if the gas tax covered diesel fuel and where there diesel suppliers were within the City limits. Mr. Corey explained the tax was a business license tax on the sale of fuel delivered to retailers inside the City and there were many retailers selling diesel. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Ms. Bettman agreed to be on a subcommittee to work with staff on a funding proposal. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 10 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 22, 2007—Regular Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 2/6/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall January 22, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. th Ilona Koleszar , 871 West 11 Avenue, spoke on behalf of a group called Residents for Responsible Rapid th Transit (3RT). She said the group formed in response to the City’s decision to make the West 11 Avenue corridor its priority for the third stretch of the EmX transit line. She noted that group’s email address was 3RT@comcast.net. She averred that using the Franklin Boulevard corridor was an obvious choice as a transit connection between Eugene and Springfield with no real alternative. She stated that 3RT wanted to help identify alternatives to running a transit line through “a densely populated vibrant neighborhood” such as the one between the downtown area and Chambers Street that would still reach destination areas in west Eugene. She related that 3RT met with Lane Transit District (LTD), accompanied by a representative of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors Association (JWNA) and LTD indicated it had no plans for a third leg of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). They found LTD representatives to be receptive and willing to share information. She said the group learned that each added leg of the BRT system must strengthen the system and not just lengthen the route, which meant that each route had to be carefully planned. She also learned that LTD preferred to study more than one corridor for West Eugene. Pauline Hutson , 1025 Taylor Street, member of 3RT, recently attended a meeting of the LTD steering th committee on the possibility of a new EmX route through the West 11 Avenue corridor. She learned that the EmX sought to save six minutes from the trip, and this would be accomplished by stopping every third of a mile rather than every two blocks. She said this did not take into consideration people who use wheelchairs, which took various amounts of time to be loaded and secured. While riding the bus she experienced delays of two to four minutes due to this procedure. She also felt the time savings did not take into account the extra time it took to board small children, the elderly, and disabled people. She thought bicycles would also be problematic, given that they would be stored at the front of the bus. Additionally, th she said the argument being made for developing ridership along West 11 Avenue could also be applied to thththth River Road, Coburg Road, Highway 99, and 6 and 7 avenues. She thought the 6 and 7 avenues were obvious routes to develop as they were predominantly commercial corridors. She stated that these routes and others needed special consideration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting th Jozef Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, also wished to address the planned West 11 Avenue corridor study. He believed transparency was needed in this action. He related that a neighbor viewed a City Council th webcast in which the council decided to only pursue the West 11 Avenue corridor as its next route for the EmX transit system. He asserted that the neighborhood was not notified of this discussion and the sole meeting with LTD was initiated by the neighborhood. He averred that the 3RT group had still not been able to gain a clear picture of “what is truly going on” and he indicated that it received conflicting responses from City staff and from the LTD staff. This, he said, led to rampant speculation on the part of the neighbors. He said people wondered if the streets would be widened, trees cut down, bus routes eliminated, eminent domain imposed on some property, and so on. He stated that the charters and mandates of the City and of LTD dictated that neighborhood input would be sought and that state money would not come without a transparent process. James Seaberry , 1475 Green Acres Road, Space 162, read a letter of testimony from John Dotson into the record, copies of which were distributed to the Mayor and council. The letter asserted that the City of Eugene staff changed the way it reviewed annexation applications so that they were modified to include streets and rights-of-way. He alleged that each time the modification was applied to an application, staff was abridging the statutory definitions of affected territory in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 199.415(3). He noted that Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission member Christine Larson recom- mended that terms, definitions, and criteria be footnoted on notifications. He supported this request as he wanted to see the boundary commission include terms, definitions, and criteria applicable to the modified and affected territory, both those pertaining to the property, to the streets and rights-of-way. He asked that since a new modified affected territory was established by City staff, was it not the position of the boundary commission to set out the terms, definitions, and criteria of both. He referred to ORS 199.415(17) and asserted that it was not applicable because the streets and/or rights-of-way being requested for annexation were not simultaneously withdrawn as represented in the language of ORS 199.415(17). Rob Handy , 455-½ River Road, asked the council to clarify its policy and to stop street annexations in the River Road area at its Wednesday January 24, work session. He averred that the fundamental reason for doing it was that citizens had a right to give voice in matters of taxation. He observed that staff called street annexations reasonable and logical, with which he disagreed. He alleged that boundary commission meetings were long because River Road residents showed up in great numbers to testify against street annexation. He claimed River Road residents had “looks of horror and dismay on their faces” when staff talked about the reason and logic behind such annexations. He noted that an application to annex had been submitted by the “last working farm” on River Road and City staff recommended that Arbor and Rosewood streets be annexed as well. He asserted that this would create an “island annexation” for 462 county properties east of River Road and south of Beltline Highway. He predicted that this would change those residents’ fundamental rights. He agreed with the Santa Clara Community Organization advisory to the council, which recommended allowing everyone to work together to “do annexations.” He wanted to stop the current practice. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, commented that the BRT steering committee met at night in “another town.” He said it might be nice if people could come to the library to give testimony to the committee. Mr. Vishanoff asserted that the Walnut Node was becoming blighted and that; the University of Oregon had let the Williams Bakery site “start falling apart.” He predicted that the Franklin Boulevard area would still be a mess when the 2008 Olympic Trials occurred. He opined that the area had become less nodal. He asserted that the Planning Commission was “essentially helping solicit donations” for Phil Knight by planning “his temple” into the nodal plan. He called it a “corporate kind of tidal wave.” He averred that MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting neighborhoods around the University of Oregon were some of the most intelligent. He recommended reading a book called Who’s Afraid of Nike Town. He also recommended reading a book called Radical Evolution. He noted that the latter was about how nanotechnology would enhance human capabilities. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Councilor Poling stated that he served as the council’s representative on the EmX Steering Committee and had served in that capacity for five years. He also participated in a Coburg Road stakeholders group. He said as a result of the stakeholder involvement, the Coburg Road corridor project was shelved. He stated that the group could not come up with a design that met the neighborhood’s concerns, the council’s concerns, and LTD’s concerns. He underscored that there was public involvement in the process. He understood that at this point LTD did not have funding for a study of the corridor 3RT members discussed in their testimony. He noted that he had recommended that the potential corridor be referred to as the West th Eugene Corridor, given that it was not strictly affixed to West 11 Avenue. He added that the purpose of the EmX was not just to reduce trip time, it was also to increase ridership and reduce vehicle miles. Referencing bicycles and wheelchairs, Councilor Poling said the conflicts between the two were not like they were in the past. He believed the time for getting on the bus would be shorter. He reiterated that the stakeholder group was open and encouraged the 3RT group to remain in contact with LTD and to participate in the group. He pointed out that citizen input would ultimately help to design the next route. Councilor Clark thanked the members of the 3RT group for their testimony. With regard to Mr. Handy’s testimony, he recalled that then-Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson spoke at the last Santa Clara Community Organization meeting. He further related that County Commissioner Bill Fleenor stood up and declared that the people in the City of Eugene were good people who were trying to do their job. He stated that the real issue with annexation was that City staff was trying to do its job and follow the Metro Plan and the law, and the real issue citizens had was the Metro Plan. He related that Mr. Fleenor had suggested that the Metro Plan be reviewed, and that Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken made the same suggestion in his State of the City address. He encouraged people in the River Road Community Organization to provide input on whether they agreed that the Metro Plan should be reviewed. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 13, 2006, City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006, City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006, Work Session - December 12, 2006, Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4901 Calling for a Public Hearing to Consider Proposed With- drawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Rec- reation District and from the Santa Clara Water District D. Appointment to Eugene Toxics Board E. Appointment to Lane Workforce Partnership Board F. Appointment to Police Commission G. Adoption of Resolution 4902 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for th Residential Property Located at 631 East 14 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (FIND, LLC) H. Adoption of River Road Community Organization Charter Amendments MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Solomon pulled Item B. Councilor Zelenka pulled items D and F. Councilor Taylor pulled Item G. Councilor Bettman said she had electronically submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy deemed the minutes corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exceptions of Items B, D, F, and G, passed unanimously, 8:0. th Regarding Item B, the Tentative Working Agenda, Councilor Solomon asked why the update on the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street property had been postponed from the January 24 meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that staff was still working on the negotiations and would not have a recommendation for the council at that time. Councilor Solomon also saw that the items for the work session scheduled for January 31 were cancelled and asked if something else would be placed on that agenda. City Manager Taylor responded that a work session to follow-up on the City Council goal-setting session was planned. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item B, the Tentative Working Agenda, passed unani- mously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka wished to ensure that everyone had seen the new tally for Item D, the appointment to the Toxics Board. Mayor Piercy noted that a new motion to appoint would be required. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Jennifer Olson to the Toxics Board. Councilor Solomon did not recall such a vote happening in her earlier term. She asked who had determined that the council would change to preference voting. Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston, explained that there were three candidates and it seemed like this would be a good opportunity to try preference voting. She said this would save the councilors’ time as it would preclude an interview. She stated that one candidate did receive over 50 percent of the vote, so the preference voting did not actually occur. Councilor Solomon asked if there was a policy change to always use preference voting in the case of a tie. Ms. Walston replied that it was “just an idea” that was thought to potentially expedite the process. Roll call vote; the motion to appoint Ms. Olson to the Toxics Board passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Regarding Item F, Councilor Zelenka, asked if it would be possible to have just one body instead of having both a Citizen Review Board and a Police Commission. City Manager Taylor responded that the City Council had created the Police Commission. He noted that the issue had been raised regarding whether two bodies were necessary but he had not received any council direction at this point. Councilor Zelenka commented that having both seemed redundant to him. Councilor Ortiz averred that they were two different kinds of bodies that functioned as different mechanisms within the local government. Mayor Piercy suggested that staff could provide information regarding the functions of the two bodies. Councilor Zelenka understood the difference between the two. He said he thought one body could serve the two purposes. Councilor Bettman pointed out that Councilor Zelenka could request a work session on the issue. She asserted that even the Police Commission questioned its future objectives especially since the Chief was pursuing Lexipol policies that were “basically off-the-shelf policies from a national organization.” She said because the main function of the Police Commission was to review policy, Councilor Zelenka’s question was legitimate. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to appoint John Charles Hare to the Police Commission. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Item G, Councilor Taylor reiterated her objection to allowing anyone a tax exemption. She felt it allowed unfair competition. She asserted that the project that was seeking the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was close the University neighborhood and not in the downtown core neighborhood for which the MUPTE was adopted as an incentive. Councilor Bettman averred that when the City Council had adopted the MUPTE ordinance, it had been reassured that the council would have the opportunity to weigh in on each application. She acknowledged that “before [development] penciled out for the developer” there needed to be a critical mass of housing. She was willing to support the MUPTE for the downtown area until that critical mass was achieved. She asserted that the project was creating housing within walking distance of the University. She declared it “basically student housing.” She found it difficult to believe the project would not “pencil out” given the demand for student housing that she perceived to be there. She alleged that every development created demand for City and County services that they were exempted from paying for in the first 10 years. Mayor Piercy asked for an explanation as to why the City was offering the exemption to this property, given that it was not in the downtown area. PDD Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman stated that the exemption was designed to increase housing in the core area. He underscored that the City Council had identified a boundary area for the MUPTE zone and the development in question was located within the boundary. He noted that the council included the area because the housing in it was deteriorating and having it replaced with better housing was a positive development in the long run. He stressed that the developer had to prove that the development would not be built without the MUPTE and the developer had done so. He added that the council also required certain quality standards and these were being met as well. Councilor Clark ascertained that the estimated life of the building would be approximately 60 years. He pointed out that the development would bring roughly $1 million in property tax to the City over its lifetime in addition to the existing tax burden on that property. He observed that it was the opinion of many that MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting these types of exemptions took money away from jurisdictions, but he disagreed. He believed it added money to the City’s coffers over the long-term. He likened it to the many establishments that sell appliances with no interest and no payments for a period of time and do so with the understanding that without these enticements the transactions would be less likely to happen. Councilor Solomon underscored that the MUPTE was not a complete tax exemption as the developer was still required to pay taxes for the land. She reiterated that the 10-year exemption was only for the improvements made to the land. She noted that the developer had included in his application eight sustainable features. She pointed out that the council had sustainability as one of its goals for the coming year. She believed that this was the kind of work the council wished to promote and wanted others to emulate. She added that the West University Neighbors expressed support for the project. Councilor Poling echoed the comments of councilors Clark and Solomon. He said the council had the same conversation every time another MUPTE application was made. He reiterated that no money was being taken away as the taxes were still being paid on the property and the exemption was only for the improve- ments. He believed it to be a good project and he believed the MUPTE was a good tool for promoting such projects. Councilor Zelenka pointed out that the West University Neighbors had sent a letter conveying the group’s support for and approval of the project. He said there were many deteriorating housing in that neighborhood and he believed the project would benefit it. He commended the developer for the inclusion of the elements of sustainability, such as solar panels and carpeting made from recycled materials. Councilor Bettman did not dispute it was a good project. She asserted that there were families living in single-family houses that were not getting tax breaks and could not afford to renovate their houses. She alleged that all of the tax breaks statewide added up to $18 billion. She questioned whether the City could “afford to subsidize this development” or if it should let the market forces take hold. She called the assumption that the development would not be built without the exemption a “false argument” because no one could prove whether it would or would not be built. She asked if there was a way to reduce the timeline. Mr. Weinman responded that the State statute for the MUPTE dictated that the exemption should be for 10 years. Councilor Bettman declared that the MUPTE made “hypocrites out of us” every time elected officials complain that there was not enough money for public safety, road infrastructure, and schools. She opined that the project did not justify a tax exemption. Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Bettman. She also felt it was a good project, but there were people “all over town” whose houses needed upgrading. She did not think the council could “give everybody a tax exemption.” Mayor Piercy said if the council had designated this area for this kind of exemption to occur to meet a certain set of goals, then the council should look to changing the policy if it no longer wished to support the MUPTE. Councilor Bettman disagreed with the notion that the council was bound to approve every application because it had put the boundaries in place. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor said the council did not say that everything in that area had to have an exemption. She thought it created unfair competition because someone who was three blocks away would not be able to access the exemption though their theoretical development could be “just as good.” Councilor Clark said the City needed to offer this opportunity in order to gain the $1 million or more that the project would bring in after the exemption expired. He stated that it would serve the City over the long haul. He believed the MUPTE to be a wise tool, noting that the Governor had said when signing the extension of Senate Bill 39 that these exemptions were a necessary part of economic revitalization in the state. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Zelenka, Poling, Solomon, and Pryor voting in favor; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting