Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/27/06 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 27, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, 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. Ed Singer, 4160 Eddystone Place, indicated that he was a resident of the Santa Clara area. He said with the 1998 parks and open space bond measure, the City promised to purchase land for a community park in Santa Clara and eight years later the land had still not been acquired. He said the City’s promotion for the 2006 parks bond measure again promised to purchase land for a community park in Santa Clara. He urged the council to do whatever was necessary to purchase property as soon as possible before all sufficiently sized parcels were gone. Reverend William Winget, 4501 Franklin Boulevard, Space 2, Springfield, asked whether Eugene Police Department and SWAT team personnel were drug-tested. He said that people in the community were held accountable for their actions and police officers with weapons who were profiling people and looking for hazardous situations should be drug-tested. He stated he had not been able to get the City to regard him as a patient with a medical marijuana card instead of a criminal, regardless of what he had done in the past. He felt the counterculture in the community had been overlooked because its members were not black, gay, or Latinos. He said the City accepted their money but not their ideas and standards for accountability. He looked forward to seeing action on police accountability. Gary Heldt, 3477 Onyx Street, said he was not in town for the public hearing on the road fee and realized the record was closed, but wanted to comment even though it would not go into the record. He said the major issue was the amount of revenue to be generated, which was larger than the Library levy. He thought it should be subjected to a public vote. His position was that two-thirds of the funding should come from a gas tax and the other third should ideally be a general obligation (GO) bond situation for project-specific reconstructions. He said the second choice would be a road fee. He opined that the proposed fee was a regressive tax that hit residents who seldom drove at the same rate as residents with multiple SUVs. Mr. Heldt urged the council to consider doubling the gas tax, perhaps to nine cents a gallon, which would have minimal impact on consumers, would capture contributions from tourists and others passing through the community, and would provide a sufficiently stable funding source. He encouraged the City to pressure the State to consider a statewide gas tax increase in the name of combating global warming and providing MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting road maintenance money; in the meantime local control in the form of GO bonds for major capital reconstruction projects should be the approached along with doubling the current gas tax. He noted that Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was opposed to collecting the fee for the City and it would be expensive for the City to create its own collection system. He hoped the council would consider a more progressive approach. th Drix, 307-½ East 14 Avenue, said Eugene was a great community and he encouraged all residents to connect and find ways to help enlighten themselves. He observed that there were two holes in the middle of town and suggested filling them with something the community needed. He was not certain what that might be but urged residents to offer suggestions. He announced that a 100-year-old tree in his neighborhood would be trimmed on December 2, and felt the community should thank it for its years of shade and service to the neighborhood by cutting it down and creating things from the wood and planting a new tree. The tree was named for Charlotte Lemon, an early community leader. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, urged the City not to sell the McNail-Riley House as the community was lacking in meeting spaces and the property should not be sold in retaliation against Jefferson-Westside Neighbors. He said the matter should be referred to a public hearing to avoid a precedent of selling things off quietly. He said the council should also encourage the 4J School District to hold a public hearing on the sale of Civic Stadium as there was strong community support for the facility. He remarked that purchase of the EWEB property by the City would have major ramifications and it would be better to have a non-profit manage development while the council focused on fixing the core of downtown first. He informed the council of a number of Internet sites with interesting information related to life sciences. th Paul Conte, 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors, shared additional positive developments on efforts to further the effective approaches to sensible compact growth. He said that Terri Harding, who had joined the Planning and Development Department to implement the council’s direction on infill compatibility standards and opportunity siting, recently joined the neighborhood association’s co-chairs for a walking tour of the neighborhood and a discussion of resident concerns and the potential for appropriate projects with the right locations and designs. He said an informal gathering of leaders from four neighborhoods experiencing some of the most severe impacts from poorly planned infill development would meet with the new interim Planning Director Lisa Gardner to share visions, concerns, and ideas for good solutions. He said the neighborhood association became aware of plans to sell the McNail-Riley House and would keep the council informed. He hoped the house would remain a community asset. th Paul Nicholson, 1855 East 18 Avenue, urged the council not to impose a residential property tax to fund road maintenance, as it was inconsistent with the council’s recent commitment to combating global warming. He noted that it would socialize the cost of driving and lower the bar encouraging single- occupancy vehicle transportation. He said there were better alternatives, such as a commuter tax on people who worked but did not live in Eugene or a gas tax, which was the preferred approach. He said imposing a property tax should include commercial and industrial destinations that did not pay any part of the gas tax incurred by employees and customers driving to those locations. He hoped the council would back away from an extremely unpopular proposal and adopt an approach consistent with the environmental principles many of the council supported. Mayor Piercy invited comments and questions from councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Papé raised a point of order about disposition of the two pieces of testimony related to the transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) when the record had been closed. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said the issue before the council was adoption or non-adoption of the TSMF; it was not a quasi-judicial matter and there was no record so the council was open for comments. Councilor Kelly thanked those who spoke. He asked about the staff response to an inquiry about the status of the McNail-Riley House and was concerned about any definitive action being taken without the council having a chance to discuss the matter. City Manager Dennis Taylor said the information would be in the Thursday agenda packet and he agreed that no action should occur without the council’s involvement. Councilor Papé thanked Mr. Singer for his remarks regarding a Santa Clara community park and said the City did plan to acquire property for that park in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Councilor Taylor also expressed her concern about status of the McNail-Riley House. Councilor Bettman thanked those who spoke and informed Rev. Winget that the new police auditor had been hired and an enabling ordinance for the Auditor’s Office would be considered by the council on December 11 following a public hearing. She anticipated that the office would be able to accept complaints and provide service to the community by mid- to late-January 2007. Regarding the McNail-Riley House, she was astounded that the City would consider selling it because it was part of an agreement between the City and adjacent neighborhoods related to the Lincoln School to provide the house for a community meeting place in perpetuity. She thought that selling the property would breach that agreement. Mayor Piercy thanked all who spoke and assured the public that no decision would be made about Civic Stadium without a public hearing. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - October 11, 2006, Work Session - October 18, 2006, Workshop - October 23, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4892 Concerning the City’s Historic Loan Program; Repealing Resolution No. 3440; Adopting a New Historic Loan Program; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly said he had submitted a minutes correction electronically. Councilor Taylor said she had submitted a minutes correction. Councilor Bettman said she had electronically submitted minutes corrections. She pulled Item B. Councilor Papé pulled Item C. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy deemed the minutes corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote, the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item B and Item C passed, 8:0. Regarding Item B, Councilor Bettman stated that the poll on her request for a work session on reconsidering an income tax for education and dedicated to the classroom had four councilors requesting the work session but it was not on the tentative agenda. She asked if that was an oversight. City Manager Taylor said that he and Mayor Piercy had been trying to coordinate a meeting with representatives of the two school boards and school districts as they had expressed interest in participating with the council. Councilor Bettman said considerable background information on the funding mechanism was available as a result of work done for the local option levy. She said the work session should be scheduled in accordance with council procedures and school district representatives invited to attend; once council direction was clear, there could be a strategizing session with the districts. City Manager Taylor said a date for the work session would be set in January or February 2007 and stakeholders informed. Mayor Piercy said the work session had not been scheduled because she and the city manager thought it might be useful for the council to discuss funding approaches with the districts to better inform what was brought to the council at the work session. Councilor Kelly said he understood the desirability of collaborating with the education partners but was bothered that the rule that a work session would be scheduled on the tentative agenda within a week of a successful poll had not been followed. City Manager Taylor commented that the council had discussed the concept of a workshop, which would be a more collaborative process involving stakeholders. He said that was the approach he and Mayor Piercy had been taking but he would move to immediately schedule the work session. Councilor Bettman asked that she be kept informed in the future if there was a delay in scheduling a work session. Roll call vote; Consent Agenda Item B, approval of Tentative Working Agenda, passed, 8:0. Regarding Item C, Councilor Papé acknowledged that the City’s Historic Loan Program had done a good job of ensuring that properties met the necessary historic criteria, but it was also important to determine if the loan recipients were credit-worthy. He asked if there were specific rules for determining who could qualify for a loan and the amount of the loan. His concern was with consistency of the City’s credit- worthy standards. Historic Preservation Program manager Ken Guzowski said the loan program was consistent with standards for loan applicants established by the Development Division. Councilor Papé asked if the standards were in writing. Loan Analyst Amanda Nobel said an applicant’s cash flow was analyzed to determine if there was a debt coverage ratio of 1.0 or higher. She said the applicant’s credit report was reviewed and all financial information was compiled into a credit report to be reviewed by an advisory committee that made the final decision. Councilor Papé asked if one year the advisory committee could vote for someone with a certain standard and in three years vote down someone with the same standard because of personnel changes. Ms. Nobel said she MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting had not seen any deviation from established standards in the loan program; decisions were based on a compilation of the applicant’s character, collateral and cash flow. Councilor Papé suggested that credit worthiness standards be developed and written down so that all applicants were evaluated in the same way. Roll call vote; Consent Agenda Item C, adoption of Resolution 4829 concerning the City’s Historic Loan Program; repealing Resolution No. 3440; adopting a new His- toric Loan Program; and providing an effective date, passed, 8:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Transportation System Maintenance Fees (TSMF) and Adding Sections 7.750 through 7.790 to the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4931, an ordinance concerning a Transportation System Main- tenance Fee. Councilor Bettman stated that with the motion on the table there were at least ten amendments to be considered; that would be a waste of time if there was no support to adopt the ultimate ordinance. She suggested withdrawing the motion on the table and putting in place a motion to not move the ordinance forward so that if there was no support for the ordinance it would go away and the amendments would not need to be considered. Mayor Piercy suggested taking up Councilor Taylor’s motions first as they would either table the motion or return the ordinance to a work session for further refinement. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to table the motion to adopt the TSMF ordinance. Councilor Kelly pointed out that an item could be tabled to later in the meeting while the alternative motions were discussed and then removed from the table for further consideration. Councilor Bettman questioned why time should be spent discussing the amendments if there was intent to remove the item from the table later in the meeting, requiring consideration of all the amendments again. Roll call vote, the vote to table the motion to adopt the TSMF ordinance was a tie, 4:4; councilors Bettman, Kelly, Pryor, and Taylor voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Poling, Solomon and Papé voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in op- position and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the main motion to add a new subsection (3) to section 7.760 of the ordinance as follows: “As long as the TSMF is collected, the percentage of all other transportation revenue that is allocated to operations, maintenance, and preservation on the effective date of this ordinance shall continue to be allocated for those purposes at the same percentage.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting Speaking to her motion, Councilor Bettman stated that currently the City had dedicated funding for operations, maintenance, and preservation (OMP) from system development charges (SDC) reimbursement fees, some road funds and other sources. She said her intent was that the percentage of those moneys from existing transportation revenues should stay dedicated to OMP. She did not want TSMF revenues to displace those funds so they could be used for other purposes. She said the reason it was a percentage instead of a number was because transportation funding overall with inflation would increase and she wanted the percentage dedicated to OMP to remain the same. Councilor Kelly indicated that he strongly supported the idea of not backfilling other things because the TSMF was in place. He asked if there was potential for a legal problem as certain funds were statutorily earmarked and a large appropriation for a specific improvement project would skew the percentages and make it mathematically impossible to comply. Public Works Director Kurt Corey replied that if the intent was to ensure existing resources were allocated in the same way he did not see a problem. Mr. Lidz said that without knowing all of the funding sources in the year in which the ordinance would take effect it would be difficult to determine the impact. He said if there were no current earmarks and if the purpose was to maintain the same percentage of the current group of funds he saw no problem. Councilor Kelly withdrew his concern as the ordinance spoke to percentages as of the effective date of the ordinance and if there were earmarks in the future the issue could be revisited with a specific focused amendment to the ordinance at that time. He said he would support the amendment. Councilor Papé said he also supported the essence of the amendment but had concerns similar to those expressed by Councilor Kelly. He asked if General Funds currently went into the transportation system. City Manager Taylor said for the first time the council by policy had authorized a $1.5 million one-time allocation of General Fund money for pavement preservation. Mr. Corey pointed out there was a nominal amount of General Fund money transferred each year to cover activities such as street lighting on the off- street bike paths, transportation planning, and traffic calming that were in the general category of transpor- tation but not eligible for road funds. Councilor Papé was reluctant to take away options from the Budget Committee as the General Fund fluctuated, but demands increased by insisting the same percentage come from the General Fund in the future as it did currently. He asked how short-term or one-time funding would affect the percentages. Mr. Corey responded with the example of current funding received from Lane County through the partnership program, 100 percent of which was allocated to OMP. He said to the extent that funding streams ebbed and flowed, the percentage could remain the same, but the actual dollars would differ. Councilor Papé offered a friendly amendment to exclude General Fund money from the formula. Councilor Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Bettman said that Councilor Papé raised a valid point as she did not want to rule out the opportunity for more funds to be available for OMP but she wanted to assure that funds currently dedicated to OMP would not be replaced with TSMF revenues so the existing revenue could be used for something else. Councilor Bettman restated her motion as follows: Move to amend the main mo- tion to add a new subsection (3) to section 7.760 of the ordinance as follows: “As long as the TSMF is collected at least the same percentage of all current transporta- tion revenue, other than General Fund revenue, that is allocated to OMP on the ef- MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting fective date of this ordinance shall continue to be allocated for those purposes at the same percentage.” Roll call vote, the motion to amend the main motion passed, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the main motion to delete Section 7.750(2)(a) from the ordinance concerning a transportation system maintenance fee. Councilor Poling stated that his purpose was to prevent TSMF revenues from being used for anything other than curb-to-curb repairs. He was agreeable to a suggestion at an earlier meeting by Councilor Kelly that five percent be dedicated to off-street bike paths, but wanted to remove any possibility of TSMF revenues being used for OMP and improvements; funds should be used strictly for road repairs. Councilor Bettman asked how revenue collected annually would be impacted. Mr. Corey responded that the rate methodology would not be affected but it would create a problem that would not be addressed as part of the strategy and that was the need to fill the $1.5 million gap in the operations and maintenance budget. He said Councilor Poling’s amendment would address the backlog of deferred maintenance but leave unresolved the funding gap in operations and maintenance. Councilor Kelly said he would support an amendment that only deleted the words “and improve” instead of the entire section. He wanted to restrict the TSMF to OMP but not improvement or new streets. He said since the council chose not to address road operations funds with some other budgetary mechanism to resolve the $1.5 million gap, he could not support the amendment. Councilor Papé felt that people wanted the streets repaired and if there could be a sunset at the point when repairs were completed he thought OMP could be funded from a source like the gas tax. He asked if any gas tax revenue was currently used for OMP. Mr. Corey replied that the local option gas tax completely dedicated to capital preservation and had been since its inception. He said the operation and maintenance gap could be addressed through other means, such as an increase to the local gas tax. He said each cent of tax generated about $700,000 annually, so a two-cent increase would close the gap. Councilor Papé remarked that he wanted to see the City use TSMF revenues for repairs, be held account- able, get the job done and then rely on other sources for OMP. He would support the amendment. Councilor Bettman pointed out that Section 7.760(1) stated the fee should not be used for capacity- enhancing street improvements. She believed there was a conflict with the language and definition and one of her amendments would resolve the issue. She would support Councilor Poling’s amendment if the words “and improvements” were removed, but if the TSMF passed she did not want the $1.5 million to be shifted from other General Fund services. Roll call vote, the vote to amend the main motion by deleting Section 7l750(2)(a) from the ordinance concerning a transportation system maintenance fee was a 4:4 tie, with councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor and Papé voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Kelly, Taylor and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in op- position and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling asked about the average cost to a taxpayer of GO bonding versus TSMF. Mr. Corey said if there was a $100 million issue to address most of the backlog of repairs the estimated additional cost for a median value homeowner would be approximately $125 annually. He said the TSMF would be about half that amount. Councilor Poling asked how much of GO funds could be used for curb-to-curb work. Financial Services Manager Sue Cutsogeorge replied that use of GO obligation bonds was established by State statute and they were limited to construction and capital improvements; routine maintenance was not eligible. City Manager Taylor said that reconstruction might be eligible but he would need to confer with bond counsel; some portion of preservation and maintenance might also be eligible and that could be researched if the council decided to pursue GO bonding. Councilor Pryor stated that he supported a TSMF but not this TSMF for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the level of consternation, questioning, and uncertainty among councilors. He felt there should be much more discussion of the issue and apologized to those on the council who had been engaged in the TSMF discussion far longer. He wanted more discussion of options such as bonding and a gas tax before supporting a maintenance fee in the current form. He wanted a TSMF that was reasonable, accountable, was supported by the community, and was part of a larger strategy that could solve the $110 million problem, of which half was capital and half maintenance. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to postpone action on the transportation system maintenance fee until the city manager could schedule a work session to consider additions or alterations to the program. Councilor Taylor said she would support the motion. Councilor Kelly said he could support the motion if it charted a new direction such as a work session to consider a mix of GO bond, gas tax, and other options, but as phrased the motion felt like returning to the beginning of the discussion and he could not support it. Councilor Papé remarked that the City had a problem that was getting worse and discussion of solutions had begun in 2000 with the citizen members of the Budget Committee. He said that some action was necessary and any ordinance enacted could always be reviewed, modified, or repealed. He urged immediate action on the concrete solution before the council. Councilor Ortiz said the discussions in 2000 occurred a long time ago and if anything was going to be presented to the voters the council owed it to them to start from “square one” and review all of the options again. She would support the motion for that reason. She was willing to support some part of a TSMF but could wait until new members had joined the council and further discussions occurred. Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the substitute motion to postpone as the proposed ordinance did not reflect the center of the council and had very little community support. She pointed out that both the business community and the “progressive” community were opposed to it and she believed the council should consider some options, including a commuter tax. She thought that any version of the current ordinance that was enacted would be referred to the voters and the council should craft an ordinance that would appeal to the majority of the voters. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor clarified the intent of his motion, which was that there were options that the council had already considered seriously, such as bonding, a gas tax, and TSMF. He hoped the work session would be confined to a combination of those options to address both preservation and operation. Councilor Pryor restated his motion: Move to postpone action on this item and di- rect the city manager to schedule a work session to consider additions or alterations to the funding strategy, including from a mainstream perspective a transportation system maintenance fee, gas tax, and bond. Councilor Taylor indicated she wished to offer a motion to amend Councilor Pryor’s motion to add other options. Councilor Kelly pointed out that while it was acceptable from a parliamentary procedure perspective, it was the council’s practice never to amend amendments. Mayor Piercy agreed that only one amendment at a time should be considered. Councilor Bettman proposed a friendly amendment to add a commuter tax to the list of options to be considered. Councilor Pryor accepted the friendly amendment for purposes of discussing the option at a work session. Councilor Papé said that while he would not be on the council in 2007 to discuss the matter it was his sincere hope that the council would not still be debating the issue four or five years in the future with a $150 million backlog. He challenged the current council and two new councilors to get the job done even though the solution might not be agreeable to everyone. Councilor Solomon said the council had been having the same conversation over and over again. She thought that the council agreed a TSMF had a valid position in the City’s strategy for transportation funding and she did not understand why the council got to the point of making a decision and then backed off. She encouraged the council to take action to include the TSMF as one of the strategies and as Councilor Papé mentioned earlier, it could always be adjusted later to accommodate other options. She hoped that the council would not be starting the discussion over every two years as that would be a disservice to citizens. Councilor Kelly shared Councilor Solomon’s sentiment and thanked her for speaking up. City Manager Taylor noted that the TSMF ordinance before the council was designed in such a way that if the council added to the gas tax or pursued a GO bond or other options, the formula would be adjusted. He said the ordinance did not presume that a TSMF was the only way to deal with the backlog or pavement preservation; it was designed to accommodate new revenue streams or sources as they became available. He said if the ordinance was adopted the council would still be able to consider other options that would have the effect of reducing the amounts assessed for the TSMF. Mayor Piercy clarified that if the council adopted the ordinance a work session on options could still be held. Councilor Taylor stated that the TSMF was an unfair tax and she would never vote for it. She hoped the council could discuss other options such as taxes on parking spaces and commuter taxes. Councilor Bettman remarked that the reason the council had not acted on a TSMF was because the proposal before it was very inequitable and a better proposal was needed. She noted that any revisions to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting ordinance after it was adopted would require a public hearing and could take considerable time. She hoped a new proposal was developed that would have broader community support. Roll call vote, the vote on the motion to postpone action on a transportation system maintenance fee was a 4:4 tie, with councilors Pryor, Bettman, Taylor and Ortiz voting in support, and councilors Kelly, Poling, Solomon and Papé voting in oppo- sition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy commented that as much as she wanted to see a TSMF move forward a tie vote was not a good way for that to happen; there needed to be a broader level of agreement and consensus. 4. ACTION: Appointments to the Budget Committee Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Robert Peters to Position 3 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2006, and ending October 31, 2009. Roll call vote, the motion to appoint Robert Peters passed, 8:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Rick Gates to Position 7 on the Budget Committee to complete the unexpired term of Mike Clark, a term beginning upon appointment and ending on October 31, 2007. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the motion by substituting the name Rich Gaston for Rick Gates. Councilor Solomon said she supported Rich Gaston for the position. She felt he was exceptionally articulate and was well-versed on the City’s budget; his breadth of experience would be valuable to the Budget Committee. Councilor Bettman stated that she would not support the amendment and would support Mr. Gates’ appointment if the amendment failed. She said there was little diversity of thinking on the Budget Committee as many members were business people. Councilor Pryor said it was a dilemma for him as Mr. Gates lived in Ward 8 and he was always pleased to see Ward 8 residents become involved in committees and other groups. He had met with Mr. Gates and he had many good ideas, although he had only been in the community a short amount of time. He felt that Mr. Gaston had a somewhat better grasp of some of the issues before the Budget Committee; he would work with Mr. Gates to help him become involved in other activities with the City but vote for Mr. Gaston. Councilor Kelly agreed with Councilor Bettman’s statement and indicated he would vote against the amendment in order to support Mr. Gates. He viewed Mr. Gates’ relatively short residency as an asset to bring a fresher outside perspective. He noted that Mr. Gates had quickly become involved in the community and was chair of the City Club’s program committee. Councilor Papé felt both candidates brought good qualifications to the position but thought Mr. Gaston had a longer tenure with the City and broader contacts in the community. He encouraged Mr. Gates’ enthusiasm MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting and continued involvement in the community. He said Mr. Gaston was from Ward 6 and a representative from that ward had not been on the Budget Committee during his service on the council. Councilor Taylor stated she would vote against the substitution as Mr. Gates was better qualified, had already become involved with the City Club, and served on a budget committee in another community. Roll call vote, the motion to substitute the name Rich Gaston for Rick Gates passed, 5:3; councilors Kelly, Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. Role call vote, the motion as amended to appoint Rich Gaston to Position 7 on the Budget Committee passed, 5:0; councilors Kelly, Taylor and Bettman voting in op- position. Mayor Piercy adjourned the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council. Mayor Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council. 5. WORK SESSION: Parks and Open Space for River Road/Santa Clara City Manager Taylor stated that the work session was requested by council vote and introduced Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss to present the item. Ms. Weiss provided a brief summary of acquisition efforts to date regarding a community park in Santa Clara. She said following the council’s 2005 decision to discontinue consideration of the McDougal proposal, staff revised the criteria used to identify suitable park sites in the area and began to look at smaller parcels and sites with multiple property owners. She said many meetings were held with Santa Clara Citizens for Sensible Parks to keep them apprised of the project’s status. She said that letters of interest were originally sent to 11 property owners in the Santa Clara area and followed up with telephone calls but no willing sellers emerged from the process. Ms. Weiss said that acquisition of land for a Santa Clara community park and providing park services in a flexible way was a priority in accordance with the council’s direction. She said further revisions to the criteria focused the search on smaller parcels in the vicinity of Madison Middle School and an additional 13 properties were identified. She said contacts with those owners did not identify any willing sellers. Ms. Weiss said that attention was now focused on two sites, which were the two largest parcels adjacent to Madison School. She used an aerial photograph to illustrate Site A, an 8.5 acre parcel owned by the Farver family and Site B, a 16 acre parcel owned by the MacClay family. She indicated that the parcels had been appraised and purchase offers based on those appraisals made to each property owner in late October. She said formal responses had not been received although there had been numerous conversations with the owners; discussions with the owners would continue in hopes of either acceptance of the City’s offer or a counter-offer. She said staff was also working on acquisition of the East Santa Clara Waterway running directly north from Madison Middle School to Wendover Park and then to the Willamette River. Councilor Papé said he had asked for information on the procedure for using eminent domain to acquire one or both of the properties. Mr. Lidz said an ordinance would be required to condemn real property for a park. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Papé asked if there was time to act before Measure 39 took effect. Mr. Lidz replied that Measure 39 would take effect next week and in his opinion would not apply retroactively, although he was not certain how “retroactive” would be interpreted in terms of the offer process in a condemnation case. He did not think that Measure 39 would apply to the offers already made but would apply to any offers made after its effective date, particularly the requirement that the City pay attorney fees if the City made an offer that was less than the jury found the property to be worth after an eminent domain trial. Councilor Papé asked if Measure 39 could be avoided by an ordinance to condemn. Mr. Lidz said he did not think that would avoid Measure 39. Councilor Ortiz asked if the City had made market-value offers. Ms. Weiss replied that offers were based on property appraisals. Councilor Ortiz asked if staff had considered making higher offers to owners. Ms. Weiss said staff would entertain a counter-offer as long as it could be substantiated. Councilor Ortiz stressed the importance of acquiring land soon as suitable sites were disappearing as the area was subdivided and developed. She asked if there had been any contact with the Christianson family. Ms. Weiss said that a meeting had been scheduled. Councilor Poling expressed confusion about a memorandum dated October 30, 2006, from Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin. He asked if the offer to purchase delivered to the Farver family was under the current zoning or future zoning if the City acquired the property and rezoned it. Mr. Medlin said the Farver parcel was outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and if the City acquired it there would not be a move to rezone it in the near future; the appraisal and offer were based on the current zoning. Councilor Poling asked if the MacClay parcel had been sold and the City was now working with a different owner. Mr. Medlin said there was a current dispute based on a purchase agreement between the MacClay family and Clyde Beat and staff was not clear about the outcome of that dispute. He said staff was working with both the MacClay family and Mr. Beat to make the City’s interest in purchasing the property known. Councilor Pryor commended staff for its “enormous” efforts to acquire park land in the Santa Clara area. He said the problem was finding a parcel with enough acreage to be suitable for a community park and finding contiguous parcels was even more difficult. He said the process was also going slowly because of the lack of willing sellers and he was appreciative of the work session to update the council. He thought the sites around Madison Middle School were ideal because of the school/park connection and neighbors in the area were helping the City work on the matter. Councilor Bettman asserted that there was no such thing as an unwilling seller; it was just a matter of price. She suggested that staff consider hiring a consultant to assertively negotiate purchase of property. She agreed with Councilor Pryor’s comments about the sites adjacent to Madison Middle School. City Manager Taylor remarked that the City had made its intention clear to all of the owners of parcels of interest and the conversations were ongoing. He remained optimistic that the willing seller approach was the preferred approach, Measure 39 notwithstanding, as it had worked well for the City in assembling park properties. He emphasized the need to confirm that the neighborhood also regarded the sites as suitable for a community park. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Papé concurred with councilors Pryor and Bettman that the parcels represented an excellent community park site. He had attended many neighborhood meetings and felt certain that the neighborhood was supportive of that site. He thought the City should move forward with acquisition and expressed his frustration with lack of progress. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to direct the city manager to bring back an ordinance to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire Site A and Site B. Councilor Pryor said both sites appeared to be outside of City limits and the UGB and asked what legal authority the City had to condemn that property. Mr. Lidz said he would research the question. Councilor Ortiz was not certain she could support the motion as she preferred to see the City work with property owners to reach an equitable agreement that would foster better community relationships. She was concerned about the location outside of the UGB and while she understood Councilor Papé’s frustration she thought that ongoing negotiations would result in the right price for those parcels. Council Kelly said he would not support the motion if this was the first discussion of a community park in Santa Clara, but the process had been an ongoing challenge and the City had dealt with the property owners for some time, with the possible exception of Mr. Beat. He was not certain he would vote for an ordinance but did feel that indicating the potential of an eminent domain ordinance, which would still pay fair market value, could cause the property owners to be more willing to negotiate. He said the motion only brought the ordinance back for public hearing and by that time there could be clarification of the UGB question and further communications with the property owners. He would support the motion. Councilor Papé agreed with Councilor Kelly that directing the ordinance to be prepared did not mean the council would use it and that intent could possibly help with negotiations. He reminded the council that the Santa Clara area had been promised a community park in 1998 and it was now 2006. Councilor Poling said he interpreted the motion as a Plan B. Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the motion and the issue of Measure 39 further prompted her support as it brought balance to what she thought was a “jurisdiction-heavy” process. She was alarmed at the extent to which property owners outside of the UGB were holding out in anticipation of the UGB expansion as if that was assured. She looked forward to the public hearing and would support the motion. Councilor Pryor indicated he would support the motion with the clarification of the City’s jurisdiction in the matter and with the acknowledgement that condemnation was a nuclear option to be used very carefully. Roll call vote, the motion to direct the city manager to bring back an ordinance to use eminent domain passed, 8:0. Mayor Piercy referred to the earlier consideration of the TSMF and stressed how seriously she took the decision not to approve a fee. She was committed to expediting efforts to solve the problem of road repair. The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 13 Regular Meeting Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 14 Regular Meeting