Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/11/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 11, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. 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 Congress approved the transfer of the properties owned by the Bureau of Land Management to the City of Eugene for the new Wetlands Education Center. Mr. Papé arrived. th Mayor Piercy noted the ground breaking for the new WestTown on 8 development on December 15 at 10:30 a.m. Ms. Ortiz noted her recent attendance at the National League of Cities (NLC) in Reno, Nevada, and reported that she attended several breakout sessions. The most interesting was that of keynote speaker Henry Cisneros, who had a comprehensive plan for homelessness. She hoped to get a DVD of the session and share it with the council and community. Another session involved the topic of inclusive community. One of the presenters was from Minneapolis, who shared how the Minneapolis council funded a youth center to ensure that immigrant youth felt included in the community. The tone conveyed by all three presenters was that their communities supported inclusiveness for their immigrant residents. Mr. Poling said he attended the most recent Lane Transit District EmX Steering Committee meeting on December 5, and learned that the Franklin EmX corridor was nearly 99 percent complete, with just a few minor changes to be made. The fourth vehicle recently arrived, the fifth one was on the road, and a sixth was being painted; all six vehicles would be in Lane Transit District’s possession within the next two weeks. Operator training was underway. Mr. Poling said the grand opening and the commencement of service was scheduled for January 4, 2007. He said the committee took a tour of the route, which was very exciting. th The committee also briefly discussed the third EmX corridor, which he thought mislabeled the West 11 corridor and which should be called the west Eugene corridor as it was intended to address traffic problems th in that area, not just on West 11 Avenue. He suggested the labeling could work against it and asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to see if he could raise that issue in the proper setting. City Manager Taylor agreed to do so. Continuing, Mr. Poling said that Lane Transit District would be doing some preliminary modeling for other possible EmX routes. Work on the Pioneer Parkway/Gateway EmX corridor was also progressing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she also attended the NLC conference. Housing had been a major topic of the conference and Mr. Cisneros’ comments touched on how increasingly working people could not afford to live where they worked. She also attended a mobile workshop on housing for the homeless and viewed Reno’s Homeless Services Campus near downtown, which she found interesting and impressive. Another session was on the topic of gated housing. The presenters dissented on the consequences of gated communities but there was evidence that they were not always workable and liability issues could arise that placed a burden on the municipality in which they were located. There were some things cities could do to guard against those consequences, and Ms. Taylor indicated she would request a work session on the issue. Another conference theme was reuse. She went on a mobile tour of downtown Reno and saw casinos that had been converted to condominiums. Both Reno hospitals were expanding downtown and reusing their existing sites. Both hospitals were also building housing for their nurses. Mr. Kelly noted the recent federal courthouse dedication and thanked the General Services Administration and local federal court staff for the interesting dedication ceremony. He was glad to see an architecturally distinctive building added to Eugene’s downtown. Mr. Kelly noted the City’s one percent for arts ordinance for public buildings, and called the council and public’s attention to a new piece of art related to the train renovation project. He encouraged the council to view the piece, which was installed by artists Betsy Wolfson and David Thompson at the end of Willamette Street in front of the train station. Mr. Kelly thanked local artist Tim Boyden for a driftwood gift that included the saying “Normal is a setting on a washing machine.” Ms. Bettman said that the Eugene Public Library would host the Eugene Youth Ballet for two abbreviated performances of the Nutcracker on December 13 at 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. She said the performances high- lighted local, dedicated, talented students. Ms. Bettman reported that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations held a reception for the local legislative delegation on December 4. She thanked staff members Alex Cuyler, Jessica Cross, and Mary Walston for their assistance in arranging the event and thanked the councilors and legislators who attended. She noted that the City’s Legislative Policy document would be available soon. Ms. Bettman noted community resistance to the idea the west Eugene EmX corridor would move further to th the south than West 11 Avenue, and suggested that the route be designated as the northwest corridor to ththth indicate that 6 Avenue was under consideration as an alternative route, as opposed to 13 or 18 avenues. She understood from the Lane Transit District that those routes were “off the table.” She thought it should be clear what would be included in the study of the area. Mr. Pryor said he found the NLC conference useful and noted his attendance at a session on inclusive leadership and a session on collaborative visioning. He hoped to be able to implement some of the lessons learned from those sessions in Eugene. Mr. Pryor commented that the housing sessions were great and one that focused on downtown redevelopment reinforced to him the need for public-private partnerships and the importance of housing to the revitalization of downtown. He agreed with the quote “people judge the vitality of a community on the vitality of its downtown,” and suggested the council owed it to the community to try to make the community’s downtown as vibrant as it believed its community to be. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Kelly about the dedication of the federal courthouse and praised its appear- ance. He said Judge Michael Hogan reminded him of the need for parking in that area of town. Mr. Papé also reported on the NLC conference, concurring with the remarks of Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Taylor with regard to Mr. Cisneros’s remarks and the Homeless Services Campus. He felt that Eugene could learn from what Reno had done in regard to the issue of homelessness. He indicated he would also share information he had received regarding sustainability with City staff. Mr. Papé presented a rock that someone had used to break his car window while he was jogging to meet with Councilor-elect Mike Clark. City Manager Taylor thanked councilors-elect Mike Clark and Alan Zelenka for the work they had done on a variety of City issues prior to taking office in January 2007. He also thanked Mr. Kelly and Mr. Papé for their work during the transition. City Manager Taylor announced the hiring of Acting Fire Chief Randy Groves as the new fire chief of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department. City Manager Taylor reported on a recent executive management team meeting, where the team brought Downtown Languages to demonstrate to the leadership team how to learn languages as one interacted with other citizens speaking different languages, in this case Spanish. He said it was a wonderful session and was a means to give staff the ability to be inclusive in the way it did basic communication when it interacted with all citizens. Mayor Piercy noted City Manager Taylor’s receipt of the City’s Human Rights Award on International Human Rights Day on December 10. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue—City Hall Complex The council was joined by Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker and Associates, who noted the recent decisions made by the council in regard to City Hall and the options before the council. Mayor Piercy asked if the consideration of cost included temporary housing for staff. Mr. Penwell confirmed that those costs were included. Acknowledging that the council had not discussed the concept, Mayor Piercy asked if the cost estimates included the cost of creating park linkages “across the street.” Mr. Penwell said no. Mr. Kelly said that the cost of locating City Hall at the butterfly site would only be 10 percent more than retaining the building on the current site, and he thought the butterfly site had great advantages. The 10 percent in additional costs was a one-time cost. He said that placing the building on the site and eliminating the butterfly lot would do a great deal to enhance downtown and inspire civic pride. The half-block footprint spoke to his values about compact urban development and it would enhance the northwest Park th Block. Mr. Kelly said the streetscape on 7 Avenue would be much improved if the butterfly lot was gone. Mr. Kelly thought the location would generate excitement beyond what the current site would do, which would enhance support for a bond measure. He was not supportive of the staff recommendation to build on MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 3 Work Session the current site, and wanted to move forward with schematic design on the Rock ‘N Rodeo site instead. He said he would not be inclined to hold a fifth workshop at this time. Mr. Pryor said that Mr. Kelly’s comments were proof of why there was chocolate and vanilla. He thought the current City Hall site was best because it was a full block. He said that ten percent of the total cost was still a considerable amount given the costs involved. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the costs of moving twice but believed it was doable. The increased flexibility that the full block created and the long-term nature of the decision made him support the current site. He thought that issues related to the site, such as the potential it could look underdeveloped, could be addressed. Mr. Pryor did not want to reduce from a full block site to a half-block site, although he recognized the City’s ability to build up. He believed that there were civic improvements that could be made on the butterfly site to make it a more desirable area, particularly if it was folded into the Park Blocks. Mr. Pryor supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work of the consultants and the process that occurred. Ms. Bettman expressed confusion at the assumption the City would be required to replace the parking that would be lost if it purchased the County’s butterfly parking lot to redevelop as a new city hall. When one bought a house, one did not pay to relocate the family. She asked how that could be justified. Ms. Bettman also asked how many parking spaces were under City Hall now. Mr. Penwell said there were approximately 200, and the City would replace 228 on the butterfly lot. Ms. Bettman suggested that meant only 28 more spaces were needed if the County employed the parking under City Hall. Ms. Bettman asked who would own the parking that the City replaced, and who would maintain it. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s first question, Mr. Penwell said that the proposal did amount to double-paying; however, the butterfly lot was not on the market, and the City had gone to the County seeking the property, which was currently a source of revenue for the County. The replacement of spaces was part of the deal for the County. In regard to the County’s interest in City Hall, he inquired about a straightforward exchange, but the County indicated it did not want the City Hall property because it was encumbered by the building. With regard to who owned the County spots, the County wanted to continue to maintain control of the parking spaces and its staff discussed adding two decks to the Public Service Building lot. He added that staff could “push back” on those points during future negotiations. Mr. Poling recalled that he suggested the council contact all the property owners involved to determine their interest in selling their properties. He thought one of the best reasons not to proceed with the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site was the overall cost difference and the potential it could be even higher. He did not think the City would benefit from the purchase of the butterfly lot. In addition, the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site did not provide the potential for future expansion in the same way the current location did. Mr. Poling said that building on the current site provided an opportunity for a plaza and additional open space. He supported the staff recommendation. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the City’s ability to handle two moves. Ms. Solomon noted her long-time support for building on the existing site and said she continued to hold that view. She said that considering building on a site when the City had no clue as to the property owner’s interest in selling was a waste of time. She said that the 10 percent cost differential was important to the project’s bottom line as well as the City’s ability to build a new police headquarters. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Papé supported the butterfly site. He argued that the costs projected did not include the costs of “organizational turmoil” and inefficiencies related to staff moves. He asserted that the 10 percent cost differential between sites could easily be consumed in two years from “operational inefficiencies related to organizational dispersal.” He asked the council to think about what kind of civic contribution it could make to the community if it built a new city hall on the butterfly lot. Ms. Ortiz said the issue for her was what the taxpayers were willing to pay for. She said the direction the council took could influence the voters. She preferred to stay at the current City Hall site because while it could cost money to move, City staff was a “hardy group” and the council was talking about building for the long-term. Ms. Taylor noted her agreement with Mr. Papé’s remarks. She thought there was a value to eliminating the butterfly lot and doing something else with that space. She hoped through getting rid of that lot, the City could do something to enhance the Farmers Market. Ms. Taylor was skeptical about the need for future City Hall expansion as she anticipated that in the future more people would be working from home. Mayor Piercy said she thought she could make a good case for either space, but was persuaded that if the City worked at it, it could find some cost savings related to the butterfly parking lot. She thought that the community needed to be excited about a new City Hall and was persuaded the council had the biggest chance of exciting the public with the butterfly lot. Ms. Bettman continued to be concerned about the parking and how it was configured. She suggested that some of the suppositions in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) were used to minimize the value of selecting the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site and maximize the value of selecting the current City Hall. She thought those were simply assumptions that could be “negotiated away.” If she had to choose between the two sites, she would select the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site. Ms. Bettman wondered whether the butterfly lot would have been one of the two final sites if anyone had identified the issues related to it earlier. She felt manipulated by staff. She thought that if staff determined the lot was not for sale and would cost extra money, it should have been “off the table” at that point or considered in light of those issues. When the council talked about saving money by building on a City- owned site, there was the Sears site, which was supported by many people at the public forums. Perhaps the council would have taken a closer look at that site, which she preferred to the current City Hall site. She thought the butterfly lot was a good location because it was in a part of town that needed redevelopment. Mr. Kelly responded to concerns about the butterfly site, suggesting that the average voter would consider an $80 million bond measure in the same light as a $90 million bond measure. They were both big measures. Regarding the need for a separate police facility, he pointed out to Ms. Solomon those costs were included in both options so his was an “apples to apples” comparison. Speaking to the suggestion the County was not a willing seller, Mr. Kelly believed that the County was a willing seller. The issue for the County was price. Regarding the potential for future expansion, Mr. Kelly did not think the public would support removing a much-loved park or plaza after a period of time had passed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Oritz, moved to select the existing City Hall site for use in schematic design. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to substitute the butterfly lot for the existing City Hall site. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the substitute motion. Mr. Pryor said that there were civic amenities that could be provided in a full block that could not be accommodated in a half block. He said the council was proposing to trade a full block for a half block and to pay $10 million more for it. He did not think it was a good deal from that perspective, and the City would have to do a lot of explaining as to why it was a good deal. Ms. Bettman believed that if the council did not choose a site other than the existing City Hall site, the public would criticize it for spending money on consultants to tell it to rebuild City Hall and put a police station across the street on the basis of that was where the City started. She also thought the public would criticize the council for spending money to move staff to temporary quarters. Mr. Papé thought that some councilors were thinking a bond measure could be offered to the voters within two years; he believed that realistically, the measure was further out in time given that there were other things the voters were interested in, such as street repairs. He felt that within that time period, the City could “find the art of the deal” with the County by offering it things the council had yet to think of. Mr. Cohen clarified that combining the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot would result in a three-quarter block site, with parking underneath. Mayor Piercy said she recently spoke to County Commissioner Bill Dwyer, and she thought it made sense for the council to sit down with the board and discuss how the two bodies could help each other. Speaking to public perception, Ms. Taylor noted that participants in the public forums had indicated a strong preference for the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot. She thought if the council decided to retain the current site, it would give a bad impression. Ms. Ortiz indicated that, although she would prefer the City Hall site, she would support the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot because of the input at the public forums. The vote on the amendment to the motion was 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pyror voting no. The vote on the amended motion was 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Establishing a Real Property Value-Added Charge; Adding Sections 2.100, 2.105, 2.110 and 2.115 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section 8.0005 of that Code; and Adopting a Severability Clause City Manager Taylor recommended that the council postpone action on such an ordinance and consider forming a work group to “hammer out” the differences parties had about the subject. He also pointed out MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 6 Work Session that the State legislature would meet soon and he would like to have the benefit of the action taken by that body on Ballot Measure 37. Mayor Piercy called the council’s attention to a motion she prepared that spoke to the points made by City Manager Taylor. Ms. Bettman said that in several cases Eugene acted where the State legislature would not, and had set a standard that stimulated discussion and gave urgency to the legislators. She indicated she would offer an amendment to the staff-prepared motion to accept the ordinance with some minor amendments, including a sunset clause in case the legislature should act. She called attention to her amendments, copies of which were provided to the council. Ms. Bettman said that the council had heard from the real estate industry, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, and Rick Duncan of the Planning Commission, who had a Ballot Measure 37 claim against the City. Those individuals had been involved in the issue and were now saying the issue was complex and the City should not act. In the meantime, the City was facing Ballot Measure 37 claims and if it did not have a compensa- tion fund, the council would have to waive its regulations. The City had Planning Commission work items underway that, when put into ordinance form, would create Ballot Measure 37 liabilities. If the council wanted to be able to regulate for condensed growth within the urban growth boundary and fulfill the City’s policies, it must have a compensation fund. She called on the council to show leadership on the issue, noting she had originally requested a work session on the issue more than a year ago. She thought it was time to act. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Klein said if the City Hall property was sold and rezoned and the effect of that was to increase the fair market value of the property, the ordinance would require the owner to pay the City 25 percent of the increase in value. If the City rezoned it, it would have to transfer 25 percent of the increase in value in the compensation fund. He noted that one of Ms. Bettman’s amendments would delay payment until sale. Mr. Papé preferred to wait on the work of the State legislature. He suggested that Ms. Bettman might want to be careful what she asked for since action on the part of Eugene could spur the legislature to take action to restrict what Eugene could do. Mr. Pryor said he did not like Ballot Measure 37 but did not think two wrongs made a right, and he considered the ordinance a wrong approach. He said that he understood Eugene was vulnerable in some areas but he hoped to see that vulnerability addressed by the legislature. Mr. Kelly responded to what was said. He argued that what the council wanted to do with regard to land use would give rise to Ballot Measure 37 claims. He said that the council could do a third bad thing, which was not to do anything, and see its infill standards rendered moot by a series of Ballot Measure 37 claims. The e-mail from 1,000 Friends stated that in an ideal world, Eugene would not have to craft its own response. Mr. Kelly said this was not an ideal world. The legislature was supposed to do something about Ballot Measure 37 but it had yet to act. While he could hope for such action, he had no expectation of it. He noted that Eugene had received four new claims and it needed to start collecting money to pay claims now. Speaking to those who said the City needed to find a better way, Mr. Kelly said no better way had come forth. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said a lot of work went into the ordinance and she wanted to honor that effort. When she considered how much it cost to develop, the proposed fee was a problem for her. If the ordinance took less, such as 15 percent of the increase in fair market value, she might be able to support it. However, she thought the proposed fee was an “amazing amount of money” to ask for on top of what the City charged for doing business in the community. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the proposed fee was only 25 percent of the increase in value that the actions of the council gave the property. It was merely “taking back part of what we gave by some action” and only when the benefit was realized, not instantly. She thought it minimal, and demonstrated that at least the council was doing something. Mayor Piercy praised Ms. Bettman and those who worked hard on the concept so that the City had money and did not “roll over” for every claim that came through. She was not opposed to Eugene being first. However, she had a sense that the idea had not “cooked enough.” Mayor Piercy noted that Governor Ted Kulongoski expressed interest in dealing with the concept, as did Representative Floyd Prozanski. She hoped that a work group could be formed to track the work of the legislature and help to develop a more fully informed way to move forward. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Klein what “jeopardy” the City would be in terms of regulating infill and other Planning Commission work plan items if the council postponed action for five months. Mr. Klein said it depended on the schedule those items were on. Most of the “jeopardy” arose from existing regulations not in place prior to the establishment of the State land use system. Ms. Muir did not see any pending commission actions that would give rise to additional Ballot Measure 37 claims. Ms. Bettman encouraged the governor and State legislature to do what they could to remedy the effects of Ballot Measure 37. If they took action, her amendment would ensure the ordinance ceased to exist. In the meanwhile, Ballot Measure 37 was the law and the City needed a revenue source to counter its effects. Speaking to Mr. Pryor’s comments, Ms. Bettman said the fee was based on the average real market value so it would underestimate the benefit that accrued to a property after the City took action, which worked to the benefit of the property owner. In a situation where the appraisal may be above the average, those property owners were likely to appeal and do their own appraisal and they would get a reduction in the fee; when an appraisal was below the average, those property owners would not need to appeal. The result would be that the appraisal would be based on the average and below. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the ordinance be scheduled for a work session following the 2007 legislative session. Ms. Solomon strongly objected to the direction the council was heading. She thought the ordinance needed more work and it would have the same type of unintended consequences as Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to substitute the motion with a motion to di- rect the City Manager to perform no additional work on the real property value-added charge and the ordinance shall not be scheduled for a future council meeting. Mr. Kelly indicated his opposition to the substitute motion because he interpreted it as precluding the council from discussing the issue again. He thought it would be foolhardy for the council, in the face of MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 8 Work Session existing and potential Ballot Measure 37 claims and what he believed to be the community’s desire to continue to do land use planning, to not continue the discussion. Ms. Bettman was glad that Ms. Solomon offered her substitute motion because she thought it very revealing. She said some people who called for delay did not support Ballot Measure 37 and had good intentions, while others calling for delay supported Ballot Measure 37 and just wanted to kill the ordinance and any jurisdictions’ ability to do anything but waive regulations. She considered the motion “an honest example of what some people’s motivations are.” She intended to vote down the substitute motion and amend the Mayor’s motion. Mr. Papé said that some of the personalities that had slowed progress on the implementation of Ballot Measure 37 were not going to be around for the next legislative session, and he wanted to give the legislature one more chance to address the issues. Mr. Poling said the value-added charge was nothing but another tax and he did not support it as he regarded it as double taxation. It would cause an increase in costs of all development and infill, particularly with regard to housing, and those first-time buyers trying to buy a house were already priced out of the market. The fee was going to add to their costs. He pointed out the school districts were also opposed to the ordinance, as were many of the people he spoke to. He supported the motion and said if it did not pass he could not support anything but the original motion. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s comments, Mr. Pryor said he did not suppose to second-guess people’s intentions. He said that many people were concerned about how the fee would affect them. He said that the fee could cost School District 4J any where from $1 million to $1.5 million. He did not think the ordinance needed to be enacted now and said the council could wait and think about it. The council could always bring the ordinance back later. Mr. Kelly said the example of School District 4J had been brought up. The implication was that the City was taking a part of the district’s budget; but instead, it was proposing to take away any increase in value provided by a City action. It was a profit for the district at that point, and 75 percent of the remaining value was new money for the district to do good things with. The other 25 percent did not “send someone to Rio or pay someone’s salary.” He maintained it preserved the City’s ability to do land use planning, maintain the quality of life, and keep up the district’s property values. Mr. Kelly said that he received many e-mails that were generated from the same template that made mention of double taxation. He said that “double taxation” was a great sound bite but it had no policy meaning. He likened complaints made about Social Security in the 1930s with complaints about double taxation. He said the value-added tax was a tax for an entirely different purpose. Ms. Taylor maintained that the council had been thinking about the issue “for years” and it was time to act. She opposed the motion. Ms. Bettman suggested the transportation system maintenance fee was double-taxation given the existence of the property tax and gasoline tax, and yet people still expected their pot holes to be filled. Ms. Bettman said the fee was merely a percentage of the benefit the property owner received. The property owner would also have to pay capital gains taxes and no one called that double-taxation. She pointed out MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 9 Work Session that the affected property owner would pay less in capital gains taxes because of the actions of the City, which reduced the revenues subject to that tax. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the school districts did not pay taxes. The districts would benefit from selling their properties but they had not contributed to the cost of the City’s land use regulations. She said the districts needed to contribute to those costs. She said the City could reduce property values when it took action, and the opposite of that was true. The vote on the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting yes, and Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to substitute the motion by moving to adopt the ordinance. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to direct the City Manager to establish a technical work group made up of staff, experts, and community leaders to develop options and a rec- ommendation for how the City of Eugene might best capture value when it grants increased development rights to property owners. The ideal method should be fair, simple, inexpen- sive, and easy to administer. The work of this group shall be completed by March 2007, in time to influence the legislative decision making. Ms. Ortiz did not feel as though the development of the proposed ordinance was a bipartisan effort, and she would like to see people working together more, and for that reason supported the motion. Mr. Kelly was disappointed the council was unwilling to take definitive action on something with an impact on the City’s ability to plan. Every time the council took a step toward a failure to plan, it made the City’s growth management policies more irrelevant. Mr. Kelly indicated he would support the amendment to the motion as preferable to the main motion. He hoped to be, but did not expect to be, pleasantly surprised by the results of the State legislature. Mr. Papé wanted to know the logistics of the proposed work group. Mayor Piercy indicated that no detail was behind the proposal at this point. Mr. Papé indicated support for the motion. Mr. Poling questioned if the predetermined outcome of the work group was a value-added tax, because if it was he could not support the motion. City Manager Taylor anticipated that the work group would discuss how to make the ordinance work in a way that met some of the concerns raised by those who had reviewed the draft ordinance from different perspectives. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if the work group could not agree on the ordinance. Would the manager get another technical work group? He reiterated that if the council was establishing a work group with the specific goal of a value-added tax, he could not support it. Ms. Bettman asked the maker and second of the motion to accept a friendly amendment that should the work group not have a remedy, the ordinance would be reconsidered for adoption. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Papé agreed to accept the friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Pryor also did not want the motion to presume a value-added tax was the result of the work group effort. He did not want to hamstring the group by overly specific direction. He hoped the spirit of the motion was that the work group would work diligently on options, because he could support it if that was the case. Ms. Ortiz deferred to the mayor, who had asked her to offer the motion. In response, Mayor Piercy said her intent was to see if the value-added tax could be made to work. If other things emerged, then other things emerged. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Ortiz indicated acceptance of amending the motion to include a completion date of March 31, 2007, as a friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon did not support the motion because she could not support the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor thought the motion was a time-delaying measure but she would support it in the absence of anything else. Speaking to Ms. Solomon’s comments, Mr. Kelly thought the spirit behind the motion was that the work group would come back with a recommendation that might or might not take the form of an ordinance. He pointed out there would be two new councilors at the table and if the majority of the council was not interested, it could dispose of the issue in a work session. The amended motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voted no. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 11 Work Session