Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/26/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 26, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Rayor had no items. Mr. Fart noted his distribution of Hersheys Hugs and Kisses. Mr. Kelly had no items. Ms. Taylor announced her appointment to the Human Development Steering Committee of the NLC. Ms. Bettman had no items. Mr. Meisner had no items. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mayor Torrey announced that he and Mr. Meisner had planted a tree earlier that day. City Manager Jim Johnson reported that there was a shooting involving the Eugene police and a bank robber. The incident occurred shortly before the council meeting commenced. He noted that no police officer in Eugene had shot his or her weapon in 3-1/2 years. B.Work Session: Final Report of the Cultural Services Department Advisory Committee Rich Scheeland of Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department introduced Kari Westlund and Jeff Morton, co-chairs of the Cultural Services Department Advisory Committee (DAC). He noted the inclusion in the meeting packet of the DAC's recommendation to the council, an executive summary of the business plan, and a graph illustrating expenses and income with and without implementation of the DAC's recommendations. Mr. Scheeland provided background on the DAC effort by reminding the council of the reductions necessitated by the passage of Ballot Measure 47/50. He noted the presence of Gretchen Hult MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Pierce, member of the DAC and chair of a former committee appointed to determine whether the City should retain operation of the Hult Center. The DAC was subsequently formed in 1999 to determine how that could occur in a financially sustainable way. Ms. Westlund reviewed the DAC's recommendations related to arts company residency, which included retention of center residency, increases in the minimum number of resident company performances, institution of annual reporting requirements related to the residency criteria established by the DAC, and a requirement that resident companies support the center's educational mission. She reviewed recommendations related to the presenting program, which included a recommendation the center retain a presenting program operated by City staff, that the number of events not be arbitrarily set, that the center be receptive to community collaboration and partnerships that support its mission, that a programming review committee not be established, and that the City not develop or subsidize a private presenting organization. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Westlund reviewed the DAC's recommendations related to the rental rates, which included a recommendation for a rate structure for the Silva Hall. Under "Operational Efficiencies," the committee recommended evaluation of the full-time to pad-time employee ratio, a benchmark study to explore variables that impact the center's fixed costs, the completion of a cost allocation model and managerial budget format, and identification of ways to increase the Soreng Theater's contribution to fixed costs. Mr. Morton reviewed the DAC's recommendations for revenues sources, which included a recommendation that the City support external fund-raising for certain capital projects that cannot be handled in the center's budget, that all Transient Room Tax revenues continue to be dedicated to the Cultural Services Subfund, that the City continue to allow the existing level of sponsorships at the Hult Center, that the City allow unsolicited or voluntary cash sponsorships for certain performances, and that the City bring together different groups to discuss alternatives to fund arts education. Mr. Morton reviewed the DAC's recommendations related to governance. Those included establishment of a governance/advisory body with roles outlined by the DAC, a proposal for the membership of the advisory committee, and recommendations related to the committee's structure and education. Mr. Morton reviewed the DAC's recommendations regarding the Cuthbert Amphitheater, which included a recommendation that the City increase activities and the exposure of the Cuthbert, that the City avoid risk at the facility, that the City create a programming plan to take advantage of the facility and to address facility and environmental issues, and to form a subcommittee to oversee the development of an overall Cuthbert plan. Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Johnson if the recommendations had policy implications for the council. Mr. Johnson said yes; as examples, he highlighted the recommendation on parking revenues, which would affect the General Fund, and the recommendation for a permanent advisory committee. Ms. Nathanson asked if the department had sufficiently analyzed the recommendations so staff could state that in two years there would be as many local performing artists at the center as there MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 2 Work Session would have been in the absence of the DAC's recommendations. Mr. Scheeland said yes. He believed the measures recommended by the DAC would lead to more local use of the Soreng Theater. He pointed out that the new rental rate ensured that a group selling out the theater would not pay a rent at all while still allowing the City to recover its costs. Mr. Kelly said he had attended many of the DAC meetings and wished to commend the work of the DAC. He thought the Hult Center one of the City's most important assets, with both direct benefits from the arts and indirect economic benefits. He highlighted the DAC's recommendations for a governance body (with which he concurred, regretting the loss of several significant committees during a downsizing of the City's committee structure in the early 1990s); its proposed changes to the rate structure, particularly for the Soreng Theater; and its long- and shod-term recommendations for the Cuthbert Amphitheater. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation to the DAC members. He thought the recommendation to take more advantage of ancillary spaces at the Hult Center made sense, and asked how that might effect the Jacobs Gallery. Would the City operate it and make revenue? Mr. Scheeland clarified that the City's operating agreement for the Jacobs Gallery with the Visual Arts Consortium addressed only the art gallery operation, not the use of the facility itself. He said that the center could pursue the possibility of private use of the space with the consortium. Mr. Scheeland noted that at one time the center allowed weddings in the lobby, but staff cuts led to their elimination. Staff was reconsidering allowing such events at a cost that ensured they generated revenue. Mr. Meisner noted that the information presented indicated the DAC's recommendations gave the center four years of what he termed "good news" until revenues were exceeded by expenses, and asked what would happen then. Mr. Scheeland said that at that time the department would need to consider other options, such as cost savings and additional revenues. He noted that the projections were specific to the recommendations related to the rental rates, and they were conservative in nature. Mr. Meisner liked the suggestion for an ongoing, continuing governance group. He thought the City lost a great deal when it had eliminated many of its advisory groups and had to recreate those groups in some cases. He did not want the committee reorganization of the early 1990s to be considered permanent. Mr. Pap~ also commended the work of the DAC. He asked if the DAC had considered contracting all or a portion of the center to the private sector. Mr. Scheeland said that the DAC discussed the possibility of contracting some pads of the center out, although a great deal of that evaluation occurred earlier by another committee. The DAC talked a great deal about contracting concessions, and he noted a national trend toward bringing concessions back in-house after a period of time during which the trend was for contracting. Mr. Pap~ asked if staff had surveyed other arts venues in comparably sized cities for their practices. Mr. Johnson said that most similarly sized western cities did not have a performing arts center. He recollected that a previous advisory committee had examined the same issue and reached the same conclusion. Ms. Taylor expressed appreciation for the new rental rates and the fact they enabled local arts groups to use the Soreng Theater. She thought it important to keep arts events affordable for the public. Speaking to that point, she asked why a parking fee was being considered for the Cuthbert MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Ampitheater, as it would make the facility less affordable. Mr. Scheeland clarified that the center rented the facility to private presenters. Private presenters expect to make money from ticket sales and expect facilities to make money from ancillary revenue sources, such as parking. He said that the City had to work to attract presenters to the facility, and could only cover its costs with parking revenues. Such fees were customary in the industry. He confirmed the parking fee, if instituted, would be assessed during the one concert held at the Cuthbert by the Oregon Festival of American Music. He noted that Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director Angel Jones would make the final decision about whether she accepted all or some of the DAC recommendations. Mayor Torrey asked how the center responded to requests to hold funerals in the center for significant community members, and if there were special rates for such a use. Mr. Scheeland said that in some cases the City had donated the use of the facility; that occurred most recently with former Mayor Les Anderson's memorial service. The City also attempted to provide the Soreng Theater to nonprofit groups rent-free six times annually for uses such as the Ask So performance. However, users were expected to cover all the center's direct costs. Mayor Torrey said it would be helpful if the center had an unpublished rate for those uses that it could share with the council. By way of historic context, Ms. Nathanson noted that the council had considered closing the center after the passage of Ballot Measure 47/50 and it was significant to her for the council to be discussing fine tuning of the center's operations. Similarly, she noted, budget reductions had necessitated the reductions in the City's advisory committee structure. She thought the council would have to consider the financial ramifications of the formation of a new committee. Mr. Johnson noted that the only general fund money spent on the Hult Center was on protection of the asset; there were no general fund dollars in the operating budget. The council thanked the DAC members for their work. C. Work Session: West Eugene Parkway Mayor Torrey noted that the purpose of the work session was to follow up on the council's joint session with the Board of County Commissioners and the Lane Transit District Board and to accommodate motions that two councilors wished to offer. Mr. Rayor expressed disappointment about the council's actions on the parkway to this point, saying he did not think it was viable to talk about other options for the funding currently allocated to the parkway at this point. The council had as much information about the project as it would ever have. He said that the entire project had environmental problems and he felt the council did the right thing by refusing to initiate the amendment to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan that would facilitate the parkway. However, he did not think the east phase of the parkway was as affected by wetlands, and it had merit. Mr. Rayor indicated he had prepared four motions that covered the range of options to give the councilors a chance to promote their positions. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to affirm the entire West Eugene Parkway project, to recommend to the TransPlan adopting officials that all four phases of the parkway be included in the financially constrained project list of TransPlan and to direct the City Manager to prepare the materials to initiate the necessary amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and goal exceptions for the Metro Plan. Mr. Kelly expressed astonishment that the motion called for an additional $70 million in funding for the parkway in TransPlan with no identified funding source. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by stipulating that before the recommendation is conveyed to the TransPlan adopting officials, the council will identify TransPlan projects to be deleted or moved to the futures list, with the total cost equal to the cost of the West Eugene Parkway beyond Phase IA. Mr. Kelly indicated he anticipated staff input on the list of identified projects. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the council should identify projects for removal. She asked if there were projects that could be moved to the futures project list by recommendation of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), or if it was appropriate for Eugene to take unilateral action in recommending such a list. Mr. Carlson believed the MPC was the appropriate venue for the discussion. He believed the council had the prerogative to make a recommendation to the MPC about projects to be moved to the futures list. Mr. Carlson added that removing $71 million in projects from TransPlan would mean that projects in both Eugene and Springfield be removed from the list, requiring joint action. Ms. Nathanson said that just because Eugene came up with a list did not mean it came up with a solution; the list would represent only Eugene's point of view. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Carlson about the impact on Springfield projects. She suggested a recommendation regarding reductions in the list to the adopting bodies could come from MPC. Mr. Meisner favored the amendment to the motion, although he did not favor the main motion. He said that the amendment represented the first time the council acknowledged that for the project to be included something else must be removed. Before now, he did not believe the council made that acknowledgment in a realistic way. Ms. Taylor also supported the amendment but opposed the main motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Carlson said that the joint adopting officials had agreed upon a triennial review of TransPlan, and at that time the project list could be adjusted and funding reallocated. Mr. Farr said that it appeared if a project was taken off the list now it could be added later. Mr. Carlson said that there could be many reasons a project might be moved on or off the list. He confirmed a statement from Mr. Farr that the removal of those projects did not represent a "line drawn in the sand." MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pap~ asked what would happen if, in three years, the community dropped Phase 2 of the parkway out of the 20-year constrained TransPlan. Mr. Carlson responded that was a plausible scenario in light of the triennial review. Mayor Torrey reminded the council that it had previously agreed to include the parkway in the plan until the federal government had required the entire project to be included in the plan. He indicated he would support the motion if there was a tie. He said that the City knew it was going to have to negotiate the constrained project list with its intergovernmental partners. Mr. Carlson clarified that there was a draft constrained project list; because projects had been added to the initial project list, the list was out of balance financially. In regard to Mr. Papa's question about the future, Mayor Torrey reminded the council that ©D©T was a player in the project and would be at the table, so it was unlikely the community could shift funding for the projects without some risk. He pointed out that eventually the project would need to be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Responding to the concern expressed by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly concurred that the adopting officials would have to concur with the council's proposed list, but it was his feeling that if the council was to make a recommendation to the adopting officials regarding the parkway, it should give the other jurisdictions some recommendation regarding what that project list contained. Referring to Mr. Carlson's response to Mr. PapS's question, Mr. Kelly said he could not imagine that the community could take project phases out of TransPlan without the concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Mr. Carlson said that the FHWA would have to be involved in that decision, as the FHWA had to accept the plan as well. Mr. Kelly said he was not aware that the federal government had to accept the plan as well and wondered why that had never been mentioned. Mr. Carlson responded that the requirement for a financially constrained plan was a requirement of the FHWA. Mr. Meisner asked for information about the estimated project funding to come from the State and asked how realistic it was that projected revenues needed to underwrite the costs of the entire project would be available. Mr. Carlson said there was no guarantee of funding. He clarified that the revenue assumptions the community was to use were provided by ODOT. Ms. Nathanson noted the importance of the project to the City's partners in transportation planning, particularly to Lane County, and the support expressed for the project by local State senators. She suggested that for that reason, it was preferable for MPC to develop the project list. Mr. Carlson observed that, in terms of the issue of anticipated revenues, revenue assumptions would change over time. He cited the County's receipt of timber money, a portion of which could be earmarked for improvements on the State highway system and which becomes new revenue for the State. In terms of the fiscally constrained list, Mr. Carlson said that if the council wanted to proceed with the parkway, staff believed it would still have the opportunity to go to the FHWA and ©D©T and work on other ways to ensure that the project was funded without placing the entire amount in the plan. Ms. Bettman asked what staff would ask the FHWA if the council was firm in its opposition to the parkway. Mr. Carlson said that staff would do what the council wanted it to do. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Torrey reminded the council that ©D©T had said that if the City did not continue to support the parkway, it would drop the funding. Regarding the revenue projections, he said that the City did not know the money would be there, but if units IA and lB were built the City would have accomplished most of what it wanted to accomplish. However, he felt the entire parkway was needed. Ms. Taylor said it appeared the council was reconsidering an action it had previously taken. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the council had not adopted an ordinance or a resolution; the council was being asked to reconsider a portion of what it decided before, in a different motion, in the same way its previous decision revised what an earlier council had done. Because the council was a new council, new action was appropriate. Mr. Fart did not support the amendment, saying it was more appropriate for the MPC to make recommendations about the project list. He said the council should consider the issue from a broader spectrum; the 20-year plan was a liquid document that could be reconsidered in time. Mr. Kelly said that the motion represented a new idea and it was incumbent upon the council to forward alternatives because the draft TransPlan included only Phase IA of the parkway and the motion moved three other phases into the 20-year plan. He agreed with Mr. Fart that the list was fluid and would be addressed through updates, but when the updates occurred the community would still need to satisfy the constraint requirement. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly said that if the council was unable to come with a recommendation for a list it would not be able to move forward. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Ms. Bettman objected to the West Eugene Parkway because it did not meet her ultimate objectives for Eugene as an appealing, sustainable, affordable community. She termed the parkway the quintessential sprawl inducer that would encourage development at the edge of the urban growth boundary and pay for it by sacrificing the quality of life as well as tax dollars. It would facilitate longer and more automobile trips to development at the edge of the community, where it was more expensive to provide services. Ms. Bettman said that the parkway would bisect the wetlands and the city and make automobile travel the only viable option in some cases. She thought the parkway would dwarf the City's other efforts related to encouraging bicycle use, pedestrian travel, and nodal development. Ms. Bettman said that the community was throwing $100 million each of the past decades to enlarge the road system to solve congestion. Congestion was not solvable, and if the community continued to build roads it would destroy the qualities that made people want to live in Eugene. Ms. Bettman asserted that research showed that the safest and most cost-effective way to create urban mobility was a well-designed arterial and collector grid system, supplemented by bicycle and transit facilities and nodal development. She said that no matter how much money the community spent on building roads, Eugene would still have congestion at 5 p.m. She thought the community had an opportunity to examine a different way of doing things. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Bettman's remarks. He also believed that the City should not attempt to construct the eastern phase without intention to construct the entire parkway. He said that if the council did not intend to build Phase 2 of the parkway, it should say so now. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Nathanson responded to Ms. Bettman's comments regarding congestion at 5 p.m., saying she believed that congestion at 5 p.m. was acceptable. One did not design roads for highest peak hour traffic, one planned for a level of service throughout the day and congestion at a certain time of day at a certain level was tolerated. Otherwise, the city would have eight lane streets everywhere to accommodate traffic for a 15-minute period of time. However, intolerable congestion and unsafe conditions were not acceptable. She said that Ms. Bettman referred to sacrificing the quality of life in Eugene but in this case, if the parkway was not constructed, the sacrifice would be for residents of west Eugene, not for the entire community. Ms. Nathanson said that the parkway was not only for the convenience of commuter traffic, but to solve real safety and congestion problems onto streets that ought to be for local traffic, specifically 11th and 18th avenues. In response to Ms. Nathanson's point about not designing roads for peak traffic, Mr. Kelly said "would that that were so"; the policies in the draft TransPlan regarding designing road improvements discuss designing improvements when peak afternoon level of service for the roadway reached Level E, so one was designing for the worst hour of the 24-hour day. That was the reason he objected to the policy; he had asked "what was it like the other 23 hours," or "isn't mobility a more important measure than what happens at an intersection." However, the level of service standard for peak hours was what remained. Mr. Fart said that the traffic on West 11th Avenue was intolerable for more than the peak hours of the day. It was intolerable because traffic on the State highway was competing with traffic on the local system. The motion as amended failed, 3:5; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to recommend to the TransPlan adopting officials that West Eugene Parkway Units lA and 1B be included in the financially constrained project list of TransPlan, and that West Eugene Parkway Units 2A and 2B be removed from the future projects list in TransPlan, and that the City pursue the construction of Units lA and 1B in conjunction with ©D©T. Mr. Rayor said that units lA and 1B stand alone. The motion would allow the City to supplement the west Eugene system with additional connectivity. He said the project as modified had minimum environmental impact and provided maximum impact. It also built on the State's design and took advantage of already acquired right-of-way. Mr. Fart asked how ©D©T would respond to the proposal. Mr. Carlson said that Bob Pirrie of Region 2 of ©D©T indicated the State's interest in improving the State system. He thought it would take effort on the part of the City to lobby ODOT to maintain the State's interest in the part of the facility east of Beltline. Mr. Fart said he would vote in support of the motion but he thought it extremely unrealistic and that the City could not expect the funding already allocated or improvements to traffic in west Eugene. Mr. Kelly said the council knew nothing about the scope of the project, and he was surprised the council would proceed without that information. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by stipulating that before the recommendation is conveyed to the adopting officials, the council will identify TransPlan projects to be deleted or moved to the futures list, with the total cost to equal the cost of Phase 1B of the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Kelly noted that in TransPlan, that cost was $31 million. Mr. Farr said that the council majority was operating in its usual vacuum, behaving as though it was omnipotent. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2, Mr. Fart and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Mr. Pap~ confirmed with Mr. Rayor that his motion would remove units 2A and 2B entirely from the plan. Ms. Bettman asked if the new route required another vote of the citizens. City Attorney Glenn Klein did not know at this point in time. Mayor Torrey indicated he would vote for the motion in case of a tie, and advocated for passage of the motion. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back options for the council to consider concerning a public vote on alternatives to the West Eugene Parkway. The council briefly discussed the timing of the motion and how the motion might be interpreted and whether it was needed. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Johnson anticipated staff would bring back options for what the question would say but would require further council direction about what those options included. Ms. Bettman thought the motion over broad, pointing out the route was already approved and the motion was specific to the parkway, not units lA and lB. Mr. Klein indicated that the motion was not needed if the council only wanted to see how the motion it just passed was implemented. Mr. Rayor withdrew the motion. Mr. Pap~ withdrew his second. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to recommend to the TransPlan adopting agencies that all phases of the West Eugene Parkway be removed from TransPlan and to not pursue associated West Eugene Wetland Plan or Metro Plan amendments. Ms. Bettman asked what the effect of the motion would be if it passed; did it supercede the previously adopted motion? Mr. Rayor said yes. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by stipulating that the City would continue to pursue shod-term funding for listed MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 9 Work Session projects that address safety and efficiency on West 11th Avenue and in the West 11th Avenue and Beltline corridor, and study ways to enhance the arterial and collector system connectivity in west Eugene. The amendment to the motion failed, 2:6; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion failed, 2:6; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to refer the proposed route of the West Eugene Parkway back to the voters to reconfirm the community's willingness to construct the parkway, and to direct the City Manager to prepare the necessary materials to place the measure on the ballot. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to place a 20-year obligation bond for $71.3 million on the ballot to fund the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Pap~ thought two measures, one related to funding and the other related to the route, should be offered to the voters. He was not sure of the approach he wished to take, but thought all the alternatives, not just a general obligation bond, should be considered. Mr. Meisner indicated he would support the motion because he thought the question of the project and its funding were inseparable. He determined that Mr. Papa's reference to the route referred to the entire parkway route. Mr. Meisner said that the question of cost was inseparable from the question of route. He asserted that ©D©T staff had repeatedly stated the agency was not willing to guarantee funding for future parkway segments. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Bettman if the funding proposed was adequate given the age of the estimate. In response to the question, Ms. Bettman suggested the amendment be revised with the addition of the phrase "plus any additional costs" following "$71.3 million." Mr. Kelly indicated that the revision was acceptable to him as the second. Responding to Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding ©D©T, Mr. Farr said that the agency was not guaranteeing anything, particularly in light of the way the council had responded to ©D©T. He hoped the public perceived the transparency of the amendment in question, because it was ludicrous to propose. If the community would not approve public safety issues, it would not approve a transportation issue, and he believed Ms. Bettman fully understood that. Mayor Torrey said that the estimated project cost was a good argument for passing the first motion that had been considered. ©D©T was prepared to fund the entire parkway cost. He said that if the motion was intended to kill the project, he recommended she divide the question. He advocated for letting the citizens vote for the two issues--the parkway and its funding as proposed in the motion--separately. Mr. Pap~ said he understood the parkway was to be part of the State system would be a State road, so State funding would be appropriate. Mr. Carlson confirmed the parkway had always been a State project and it was always assumed that the project would be completly State-funded. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Nathanson did not support the motion. The whole point of the parkway proposal was to use State and federal money to address a problem imposed by the presence of a State highway facility on the community. She thought it unconscionable to seriously suggest that Eugene residents should bear the burden of paying for the parkway when the parkway was intended to serve a much wider group of citizens. She said that the councilors putting forth the motion had frequently discussed the need to broaden the City's resource base for other projects; for example, several had expressed regret in the past that there was no regional support for the airport. She was surprised at the shift in direction. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to table the motion to March 5. Mr. Meisner called for more discussion at a later time. The motion to table failed, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bettman voting no; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion and the final vote was 5:4 against the motion. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion and the final vote was 5:4 against the motion. In response to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly said that he supported the amendment because if the City was to go to the voters and ask them if they "would like a free lunch," he suspected they would say yes. He merely wanted the means to pay for the project attached to the vote. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by stipulating that the ballot measure will identify other TransPlan projects to delete or move to the futures list to pay for the West Eugene Parkway. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion and the final vote was 5:4 in opposition to the motion. Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the main motion. Mr. Johnson questioned the need for the motion if the western portion of the parkway was eliminated. Mr. Rayor opposed the motion because the issues involved were very complex. He thought there were significant environmental impacts resulting from the western section of the parkway that would be heavily debated if referred. Ms. Nathanson did not support the motion because it did not feel right to her to send something to the voters that could never be implemented or accomplished because the majority of the council would refuse to do so. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Pap8 disagreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said the council should place the issue before the voters and respect their intelligence. He called for a full hearing of all sides of the issue. If the voters voted the project down, it would inform the council. Mr. Meisner did not support the motion at this time. He would have supported the motion if some of the amendments related to the project list and council accountability for the list had passed. He maintained that ODOT had repeatedly eliminated funding for the project over the past few years, and had not been consistent in its support. The motion failed, 2:6; Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Farr voting yes. D.Work Session: Bus Rapid Transit The council was joined by Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer, City Engineer Les Lyle, Lane Transit District (LTD) Board members Pat Hocken and Rob Bennett, and LTD staff Mark Pangborn, Stefano Viggiano, and Andy Vobora for the item. Mr. Farmer provided background on the development of the proposed Bus Rapid Transit system and requested input from the council to help guide the Planning Commission in its deliberations. Mr. Lyle described the Eugene/LTD BRT Policy Committee, which was a staff team formed to develop recommendations related to the project phasing. He emphasized the need for quick action as LTD needed to complete the processes that would allow it to secure federal funding. Ms. Hocken noted the federal funding intended for the project and stressed the importance of that funding being obligated soon, or it would be lost, leading to some urgency in proceeding. Ms. Hocken emphasized the importance of BRT to the community's land use and transportation issues. She said that the City's earlier work to foster bicycle riding, which resulted in a higher per capita number of bicycle users than could be found in other communities, could be extended to the use of transit in the community. She acknowledged the no-build option but said it did not mean no change would occur. She did not think continuation of current service patterns would foster the City's goals related to nodal development and transit. Ms. Hocken said the pilot corridor was only the start of the system. Other routes were planned. However, the pilot corridor was currently the heaviest used route. She noted Springfield's interest in a route to Gateway and anticipated the Eugene council would have suggestions for other corridors. Ms. Hocken said that LTD believed that the system could make a difference even without dedicated right-of-way with the special approaches that had been developed. She noted the most recent design for the corridor preserved all historic trees along the busway. She anticipated that landscaping along the routes would occur in the future. Mr. Meisner asked for information about the proposed phasing, noting a proposal by the Ad Hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning for redevelopment along the Franklin corridor, making it more expensive and difficult for LTD to purchase right-of-way in the future. Ms. Hocken said that the phasing was put forth by the Eugene Planning and Development Department. Mr. Farmer said that the council might want to give further direction on the issue to the Planning Commission, such as the development of an overlay zone to protect the right-of-way. Mr. Meisner said that the system would only work if done right, and planning for the third phase needed to MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 12 Work Session occur now. Ms. Hocken responded that LTD was committed to working with the City and to being responsive to City suggestions. Mr. Johnson noted that staff had discussed the district's inability to realize the goals of the system immediately, leading to the recommendation for phasing. Regarding project options, Mr. Meisner advocated for alternative fuel vehicles even if they were not available in the "look" the district wanted. Ms. Hocken hoped the BRT Steering Committee could discuss that issue. She said that the district was looking at potential vehicle types now. Mr. Meisner said that the phasing was acceptable, but the questions proposed for commission review were very important to him and relevant to his continuing support for the project. Mr. Farr said he was impressed with the way the district took input about the project and attempted to address the concerns of those living in the residential areas and the commercial uses along the route. He favored the project and was prepared to move forward. He thanked Ms. Hocken and Mr. Bennett. Mr. Rayor thought BRT would work, was innovative and was good for Eugene. He hoped LTD would show sensitivity to conditions on Franklin Boulevard. He said that both trees and bicycle paths were important, and parts of Franklin lacked a good bicycle system. Those elements must be balanced. Mr. Rayor was concerned that BRT could preclude the addition of bicycle lanes on Franklin. Ms. Hocken responded that LTD was proposing a three-block area of bicycle improvements with the first phase. She said that bicyclists do not like to use Franklin Boulevard now. Ms. Hocken suggested that the provision of bicycle paths was an ongoing evolving issue. Mr. Kelly said his support for BRT in the future would be dependent on the level of detail in the motion offered to the council. He wanted a motion with bulleted points about the nature of the Phase 1 pilot corridor and the neighborhood connector service. Mr. Kelly said he was very supportive of the BRT concept and supported the project if it included enough attributes to ensure its success. He supported the phasing proposed with the caveat raised by Mr. Meisner and a point mentioned by Mr. Farmer regarding the need to ensure that phasing precluded future build out at a reasonable expense. Mr. Kelly added he supported the phasing because it allowed coordination with the City's vision of Franklin while allowing the City to investigate the potential of running part of the future build-out in place of a current automobile travel lane. Mr. Kelly noted the slip in the project schedule and asked why he should believe the new schedule. Ms. Hocken responded that the Eugene council had been scheduled to review the project in November 2000 and was only considering it now. The Planning Commission took longer than anticipated to review the project. She pointed out that the council was not scheduled to make a decision until April. Ms. Hocken thought that once the approval process was completed and the final decision embarked on, the project would proceed quickly and on schedule. Ken Hamm, Director of LTD, noted that the district had committed to the Congressional delegation that it would have community concurrence before it moved forward with BRT. Ms. Bettman supported the questions being referred to the commission, and said she would like to see the council consider the questions under the section "Should other project options be considered." She thought the commission should be asked to discuss that section as well. Ms. Bettman thought issues related to jurisdiction should be referred to the council, and suggested that construction management issues were more appropriately addressed by staff. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 13 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought that the vision of the future was key to making BRT work. She acknowledged some compromise would be necessary but certain elements of the project should not be compromised. She supported locating the western terminus of the route in downtown on 11th Avenue, and the alternative vehicles mentioned by Mr. Meisner. Ms. Bettman asked if any infrastructure planned in the first phase would preclude any options that had been discussed from being implemented in later phases. Mr. Viggiano said no reconstruction should be required if the master plan was implemented. There was some uncertainty about the location of stations in the Glenwood area as LTD worked with Springfield while that city developed its nodal development plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Viggiano said that if the City, for example, recommended that LTD eliminate two traffic lanes, that would require a reworking on the Environmental Assessment to the degree the federal deadline for funding could not be met. Ms. Nathanson advocated for new, easy-on, easy-off vehicles. She wanted to ensure that the project complemented the redevelopment of Franklin Boulevard, and asked LTD to remember the relationship of the project to that project and other plans, such as the Entrance Beautification Study. She indicated she would like more conversation with LTD about the benefits of the project for west Eugene residents. Mr. Pap8 thanked the LTD representatives and staff for attending the meeting. He indicated general support for BRT and clarified some design changes with LTD staff. The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 14 Work Session