Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/09/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall ^pril 9, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Fart. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.WORK SESSION: ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Meisner had no items. Ms. Bettman had no items. Mr. Rayor anticipated that energy rates would rise considerably, and constituents called him wanting to know what the City could do about it. He acknowledged the issue was not precisely within the City's jurisdiction, but suggested the organization's public information staff issue a press release regarding the City's role in energy distribution and its own efforts to control electricity costs. He likened the effort to the City's educational efforts regarding the Year 2000 issue. Ms. Taylor requested a work session be scheduled on the proposed police crowd control policy under consideration by the Police Commission. Ms. Taylor asked if the council would receive a report on what it would cost to upgrade City Hall to seismic standards. City Manager Jim Johnson said yes. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Rayor that a City-prepared information packet about energy rates would be useful. He also noted his interest in having staff explore with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) the potential of City assistance to Iow-income ratepayers in paying their bills using EWEB's in-lieu-of-tax payments. Like Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly also wanted a work session, perhaps involving members of the Police Commission, regarding the proposed crowd control policy. The council briefly discussed suggestions from Mr. Kelly that the Public Forum at the later regular meeting be scheduled for 45 minutes on a permanent basis, and that the mayor be allowed to sort the request-to-speak forms by topic, and that the council hear speakers on a round-robin basis by topic, so that individuals wishing to speak to a topic not being addressed get a chance to speak. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pap~ objected to the suggestion, Mr. Pap~ because he felt that speakers should be heard on a first-come, first-serve, basis. Mr. Kelly noted that nothing in the council ground rules precluded implementation of his suggestions; he also felt that those who rarely came to speak to the council should be encouraged. Because of the objections voiced by Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Taylor, the council made no change to the time scheduled for the Public Forum or the process by which speakers were heard. Mr. Pap~ reported that the Police Commission would discuss its recommendations on the crowd control policy and the use-of-force continuum at its upcoming meeting. That meeting included an opportunity for public comment. He thought the commission's work on the issues would be completed in May 2001. Mr. Pap~ also noted that the Human Rights Commission wanted him to thank the council for supporting the Hate Crimes Conference and for sponsoring scholarships. He said that the event had been well-run and worthwhile. Ms. Nathanson reported on the work of a citizen involvement group convened by EWEB to discuss the utility's next steps for extension of its fiber optic network. She said that the last meeting topic was universal access, which was a key goal for the Eugene council. Ms. Nathanson said she continued to advocate for universal access in the citizen involvement group. She invited interested councilors to contact her for information about the effort. Ms. Nathanson said that she had communicated with the City Manager about what the City Council could do to help educate the public about the energy situation, and how the City could act as a role model in reducing energy consumption. She said that the council just received a report on the reductions in the Atrium Building's energy use, and suggested the news be publicized widely as an example for the public. Ms. Nathanson thought, however, there were more things that could be done, such as turning down more lights in City-owned facilities. Ms. Nathanson further noted that, in the context of her work on the Human Services Commission, she had asked staff what local government could do to help Iow-income energy ratepayers. Mr. Johnson introduced new Public Works Director Kurt Corey and new City Communications Director Tom ©shanski. Mr. Johnson said that it appeared from recent media accounts that several members of the council and PeaceHealth were interested in discussing ways the hospital could remain downtown rather than move to north Eugene. He asked for the council's permission to enter into discussions with PeaceHealth Chief Executive Officer Alan Yordy about the City's involvement in that effort, and suggested that Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman, as councilors representing the hospital at its current site and at its potential north Eugene site, also be involved in those discussions. There was council concurrence. Mayor Torrey expressed hope the Budget Committee would find a way to fund the downtown police substation. Mayor Torrey said a public hearing on redistricting would be held by members of the legislative committees of the Oregon House and Senate the following day at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. B. WORK SESSION: HE DOWNTOWN/WILLAMETTE RIVER/FRANKLIN BOULEVARD VISIONING PROJECT Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer introduced the topic. The focus of the meeting was on Key Next Steps and the Implementation Strategies that would realize the vision. Mr. Farmer said as staff prepared the next steps, it reviewed the council's comments to this point and modified the steps accordingly. He specifically noted the addition of a next step related to protection of neighborhoods near downtown, an issue the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning did not think was within its purview. Staff recommended the council address the issue of a boundary between downtown and those neighborhoods as part of the planning phase of the project and further that it consider how to protect those neighborhoods. Mr. Farmer asked the council to approve six key next steps: 1) redesign Broadway; 2) complete an update to the Downtown Plan; 3) transportation revisions and Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) update; 4) redevelopment concept for EWEB/Chiquita/Broadway; 5) protect adjacent neighborhoods, create an edge to the downtown; and 6) vision implementation tools. Mr. Farmer noted the distribution of motions prepared in response to issues raised by Mr. Rayor and Mr. Kelly. Mr. Farmer recommended that the Planning Commission, augmented by the addition of three City Councilors, oversee the implementation/planning process. That effort would include an extensive public process. Regarding the first step, Ms. Taylor did not want conditions in downtown to deteriorate further. She preferred that the City take small steps, and first do things that were easy and inexpensive. Regarding the cost estimate for the redesign, Ms. Taylor thought the design costs were too high, particularly given that when the council had not reached a decision on whether to pursue the street reopening. She also wanted information about how the street reopening, if approved, would be paid for. Mr. Kelly referred to the list in the agenda item summary that reflected the council's major issues related to the different points in the vision, and suggested the council adopt the list to give clear direction to staff. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the City Manager follow the councilor input in the list on page 5 and 6 of the agenda item summary as revised, in further work on the Greater Downtown Vision Plan and implementation. Mr. Kelly clarified that the phrase "as revised" referred to the four changes he proposed in an e-mail message sent earlier to Mike Sullivan of Planning and Development Department, copies of which were distributed to the council: 1)under item 1, second bullet, add words at end: "of Broadway, assuming an acceptable funding mechanism is available"; 2) under item 3, third bullet: change "needs definition" to "is a priority"; 3) under item 4, second bullet, add words at end: "Financial incentives downtown must be balanced with greater cost recovery elsewhere in the city." Mr. Kelly referred to a motion developed by Mr. Farmer that would supplant the fourth point in his e-mail message. The motion would amend the "Capitalize on Development Opportunities" section of the comments and themes section to include the following language: Explore the feasibility o fall new parking structures being provided by the private sector, with the City providing tools to the private sector to facilitate their development. Ms. Nathanson believed most of the items in the list had substantial council support but some might not have majority support. Mr. Kelly clarified that the items would inform further staff work on the vision. The list would be on record as council policy as opposed to being individual desires of councilors. While he was not comfortable with all the items, he was willing to have them listed. The motion was not intended to make the items into specific expenditures at this point or create new work plans. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the motion could be interpreted to direct staff to begin moving forward with the items on the list. She wanted the record to be clear that was not the intent of the motion. Mr. Meisner suggested the motion be revised to indicate that Mr. Johnson would consider, rather than follow, the councilor input in developing the plan. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman accepted Mr. Meisner's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly said that the legislative history should reflect that a majority vote of support indicated there was weight behind that consideration. Ms. Bettman supported the motion, liking the idea that the council had given input and its direction would inform how key steps were implemented. She had a reservation about the recommendation for angled parking. While she was generally opposed to angled parking, she was willing to consider it in situations where it did not result in the expansion of the width of the existing street or take up part of the sidewalk, and asked for council concurrence on those points. Mr. Rayor noted his support for the motion. Regarding the motion prepared by staff on his behalf, he said that the motion captured some but not all his concepts. Mr. Rayor objected to the process used to review the plan to this point, saying the council had been unable to "put our touches on it." The council had been unable to offer amendments to the vision and have them voted "up or down." Mr. Rayor thought the vision was "mostly good" but he had "bicycle points of view" he had been unable to incorporate into the vision. Ms. Taylor supported most but not all the items on the list, thinking most needed further examination, and expressed concern that they would go forward if the motion was approved. She preferred to wait to vote on the entire package of proposals associated with the vision. Ms. Taylor also expressed concern the City was attempting to do too much at one time. Mayor Torrey supported the motion, and suggested that direction be given to the staff to put the question of opening Broadway on the ballot. He thought that the council should find out whether the citizens want to open the street, saying he would work to secure the funds to open the street if the voters approved. He suggested a September or November 2001 vote. He asked staff to comment on the impact of the motion. Mr. Johnson responded that Mr. Kelly was trying to get the manager to consider council input on the items on page 5 and 6 in the packet. He thought it was necessary because of all the things that were discussed; he believed that staff had captured the nature of individual councilors' interests, but there was not yet consensus expressed for all. Ms. Nathanson suggested a bullet be added to the list on pages 5-6 to acknowledge Mr. Rayor's bicycle concerns. Mr. Rayor believed that his concerns were largely captured under bullets 2 and 4. Mr. Johnson suggested that the information distributed by Mr. Rayor be considered an explanation of what was intended by bullet 4. Mr. Rayor accepted that approach, although he continued to maintain that the Willamette River bicycle path not emphasized enough in the vision, and he wanted staff to consider that. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly said that the intent of the motion was not that staff consider the items on the list as the opinion of a single councilor; rather, the council as a whole was asking the staff to keep those issues in mind. Mr. Johnson added that staff will keep track of the items on the list and report back to the council on how the list was affecting implementation of the plan. Ms. Taylor indicated she could not support the motion if it meant all the items on the list would be implemented. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. The council considered the six key next steps identified by Mr. Farmer. Redesign Broadway Mr. Farmer placed the recommendations regarding the Broadway redesign in context by noting the steadily changing climate in downtown since the work done by the North End Scoping Group and staff's effort to time the effort appropriately. He said that there appeared to be some council support for reopening the street. He noted options for the redesign, which ranged from a typical street to a street with more pedestrian amenities and restricted auto access. Mr. Farmer said there was also disagreement expressed by the ad hoc committee and residents about which sections of Broadway were to be opened, and issues raised about the need for traffic calming if the entire street were opened to address the traffic impact on the neighborhood to the west. He anticipated that the issue of reopening the street could go to a vote in September if the council wished. Ms. Bettman noted her interest in traffic calming to protect the neighborhood west of downtown. She wanted the issue on the next ballot with an identified funding source. She had hoped staff would return with a funding recommendation based on some of the suggestions made by councilors, such as a parking tax on lots outside of downtown or a combination of assessments and systems development charges. Ms. Bettman preferred to consider the expenditure in the context of the budget process so it could compete with other important needs. She requested an analysis of a parking tax outside of downtown as a funding mechanism for downtown improvements, including the improvements to Broadway, and an analysis of whether the improvement could be funded with systems development charges and assessments. She also requested other staff suggestions for funding sources. Mr. Kelly noted his support for opening Broadway between Charnelton and Oak streets. However, he needed more information than was included in the packet materials to proceed. He added that he preferred a September vote to a November vote. Mr. Kelly opposed spending $100,000 on design work before a vote. He requested staff suggestions about a lower level of funding that would permit the City to develop a design that would give the voters a conceptual idea of what they were voting on. Mr. Kelly suggested the proposed zoning overlay needed to happen in concert with the Broadway opening to ensure that redevelopment that occurred would fit the council's concept for downtown. Mr. Kelly said that when the public was asked to vote, it should be told how the project would be paid for. In response to councilors' comments, Mr. Farmer said that staff proposed an approach that did not get into detailed design, but provided enough information so that people would know, for example, the impact on trees. He said that staff proposed to divide the street into cells and identify the cost of each cell. The $100,000 proposed also funded a public participation process. Ms. Nathanson expected the project to be a collaboration between departments and not merely a Public Works street project. She thought it was important the project be sensitive to urban design issues because of the downtown location. She had questions about the street design, saying it should not be designed in isolation as a single, showcase project. Ms. Nathanson asked about the theme, and if the City would be starting over and then need to retrofit other streets to match the new design. If there was an awning program, how did the street relate to that program? How did the landscaping on the street related to the landscaping on East Broadway or other "great streets" identified in the visioning process? She emphasized the importance of designing the street in context of an overall vision. Mr. Pap~ said that the City should develop a preliminary design with less money, and get it out to the voters for review prior to a September election. He thought the voters should be asked if they supported reopening Broadway between Charnelton and Oak streets. Ms. Taylor said that public participation in the design should occur after the voters vote to open the street. She agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pap6. Mr. Rayor supported having a vote on the question of the street reopening, but did not want to be too detailed about the design since that information was not required in the ballot question or description. Mayor Torrey said he hoped the council could go to the voters in September. He agreed that the City should not do too much design work until the public has indicated its support for opening the street. Mayor Torrey did not support including a new vehicle for revenue generation with the question of opening the street as he thought the issues were separate. Mr. Rayor determined from staff that a vote to reopen the street was required by the City Charter. Mr. Johnson said that the council could simply ask the public if it wanted to reopen the street, so the planning for the design was probably not needed. He said that preliminary designs could be developed at a lower cost. He briefly discussed the time frame for placing an item on the September or November ballot. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Johnson that the council was not bound by the vote to open the street if no funding was available for the purpose, that it had the option of returning to the voters in a subsequent election with a funding mechanism, and that it could avoid spending the $100,000 if all it did was place the measure on the ballot. Ms. Bettman favored that approach. Mr. Farmer said he would recommend that Broadway be reopened and the voters be asked to take a position on the issue. He said that staff could reduce the proposed budget, but reminded the council that it continued to ask for more work sessions, more detail, and more public participation on downtown issues. Mr. Farmer said that without adequate public participation, the public would question what was going on. He said that it was the staff's intent to address those questions by providing the public with information prior to a November vote in venues such as the Eugene Celebration. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the implementation work plan for Redesign Broadway be accepted as outlined in the meeting packet, with two changes: 1) a public vote in September 2001 rather than November 2001, and 2) that the design work prior to the vote not exceed $30,000. In the short-term, the City Manager staff would return with options for funding mechanisms, including an analysis of using systems development charges and a parking tax to fund the project. Mr. Farmer said that he would recommend a lesser reduction because of the way the project was funded and because additional work was being requested of staff. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1, Ms. Taylor voting no. Complete an Update of the Downtown Plan Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved that the Key Next Steps and work plans for Complete an Update to the Downtown Plan; Transportation Revisions and CATS Update; Redevelopment Concept EWEB/Chiquita/Broadway; Protect Adjacent Neighborhoods; Create an Edge to the Downtown; Vision Implementation Tools be adopted. Mr. Kelly asked if the implementation plan implied any code changes proposed to implement the plan would occur after April 2002. Mr. Farmer said that would be discussed as part of the plan. He anticipated that appendices to the plan would be forwarded to the council, and the process of adopting code changes would be a separate process. He acknowledged that the process involved land use changes, which could lengthen the process; however, he thought code changes could be adopted within six months of April 2002. Mr. Kelly did not want to get too far into the process of reopening Broadway until some of the plan elements were in place. Ms. Bettman referred to the Transportation Plan, and said she would like to see it emphasize an increase in on-street parking. Referring to the redevelopment of the Chiquita site, she suggested the City do a cost analysis determining what money could be saved by preserving the property north of the tracks as parks and open space, as opposed to developing it. She also called for an examination of the impact that more office and retail uses built on that site would have on downtown businesses and office space. She was concerned about the current condition of downtown and feared that development on the Chiquita site would worsen that situation. Ms. Bettman thought preserving the property north of the park could make the whole area more attractive to higher density housing and avoid the problem of overcommercializing downtown. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by directing the City Manager to produce a short-term cost analysis of the feasibility of preserving the property north of the tracks as City parks and open space, and the projected impact of any more commercial office space in the downtown. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the amendment was necessary as the topics it covered were already going to be examined. She pointed out that residential development was key to the redevelopment of the area in question in mixed uses. Mr. Kelly was comfortable with the amendment. Mr. Johnson clarified that the property located north of the tracks belonged to EWEB, not to the City. Mr. Rayor suggested the reference to "City" parks and open space be deleted. He did not want to be ahead of EWEB's planning, pointing out the City could not tell EWEB what to do with its property. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor accepted the friendly amendment. The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting yes. Mr. Kelly underscored the importance of involving the neighborhood associations early in the implementation process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion with the addition of the following sentence to the implementation work plan for Vision Implementation Tools: "The information provided to the council will also include proposals to balance downtown incentives with increased cost recovery elsewhere in the city." The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the Redevelopment concept for Chiquita/EWEB/Broadway with the addition of phrase "Protect the Willamette River Bicycle Path." Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion would preclude relocating the bicycle path to add space for the riparian zone. Mr. Rayor said such a move would be acceptable. His concern was focused on the committee's discussion of whether parking on the river's edge would be allowed. He did not think the issue had been resolved by the plan. Ms. Nathanson noted that the provision of such parking was not included in the plan. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by directing the City Manager to delineate the boundaries of downtown Eugene so that the southern edge shall be the south side of 11th Avenue, the western edge shall be the eastern side of Lincoln Street, and the northern and eastern edge should be determined through the update of the Downtown Plan and shall take into consideration the North End Scoping document's recommendations. Mr. Farmer suggested it was premature to determine the downtown boundaries now. He felt that the effort was better left to the planning phase, and that the community be engaged in a dialogue of where the boundaries should be. Mr. Kelly said he did not want to see continued commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods near downtown but acknowledged the justice of Mr. Farmer's remarks. He recommended that the amendment be revised to direct the manager to bring back proposals for the location of the boundaries, and with the addition of a sentence that directed the manager to return with interim measures to prevent the conversion of residential uses to commercial uses adjacent to downtown. Ms. Bettman accepted the amendment. Mr. Johnson said that the second element of Mr. Kelly's amendment represented a new work program for staff. Mr. Kelly emphasized the interim nature of the measures he was seeking, and recommended that the manager return to the council with what he characterized as "some low-hanging fruit." Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Childs noted the preservation of residential housing was the next-to-last implementation work plan item. The effort would not represent merely a zoning "fix"; staff would need to consider potential amendments to the existing neighborhood plans. Ms. Bettman was concerned about the fact the implementation work plan effort would not be completed until 2002, while the conversion of residential housing near downtown was an ongoing issue. The amendment to the motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The council postponed further consideration of the remainder of the agenda item. C. WORK SESSION: BUS RAPID TRANSIT The council was joined by Mr. Farmer, Lane Transit District (LTD) Board members Pat Hocken and Robert Melnick, LTD General Manager Ken Hamm, and LTD staff Mark Pangborn, Stefano Viggiano, Lisa Gardner, and Graham Carey. Mr. Farmer introduced the item, reminding the council that it had directed staff to return to the Planning Commission with a series of questions regarding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and for more public involvement. That process had occurred. He emphasized the importance of BRT to the success of regional transit and to the City's downtown visioning efforts. Mr. Farmer said the system was new and different, and took advantage of many of the positive aspects of light rail without the initial built-in costs. It could be a vital element of the the City's entrance beautification and gateway concepts; he said the system also gave the community the opportunity to remake the entrance to the University of Oregon as well. Ms. Hocken thanked the council for its time and thoughtful consideration of BRT over many months, and acknowledged the efforts of the Planning Commission and City staff. She noted the presence of LTD board member Robert Melnick, Dean of the University of Oregon's School of Architecture and Allied Arts. Ms. Hocken quoted from Voltaire: 'The best is the enemy of the good., Failing to undertake a project because the outcome may not be perfect could result in the loss of a positive outcome. Ms. Hocken acknowledged that the proposal before the council was not the complete system, but the first steps toward the complete system. She said the LTD board and staff were committed to moving forward with engineering and construction with the council's approval. The board was also committed to working with the City on planning and design for the next phase, and funding had been allocated for that purpose. She asked for council approval of Phase 1 for the pilot corridor so the district could take advantage of federal funding. Ms. Hocken called the council's attention to a letter from Hillary Wylie of the LTD board answering some questions previously submitted by councilors. Ms. Bettman asked for clarification about the funding for Phase 2. Ms. Hocken said LTD wanted the council to be aware that funding had been set aside for the next two years for planning for the next phases of the system. Ms. Bettman said that the commitment of Eugene staff time to the project appeared to be considerable, and wondered how much of the $11 million for Phase 1 could be directed to Eugene to underwrite staff costs. Mr. Viggiano said that approach was not currently reflected in the budget. The contingency fund established by LTD was intended to address the cost of design issues that might arise during the final design phase. He said that the future reimbursement of City staff could be discussed in conjunction with the development of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Mr. Farmer added that City staff understood that the City would be reimbursed for its costs related to engineering design work. Mr. Hamm confirmed that statement, saying that the costs would be worked out through the IGA. He clarified that reimbursement for City planning costs had not been negotiated. Ms. Bettman indicated she would offer a condition for approval that involved the reimbursement of City costs by LTD. Ms. Nathanson recollected the development of the Entrance Beautification Plan, regretting that the plan had never been fully funded or implemented. She thought BRT would be a major vehicle, in conjunction with the visioning plan, in getting the goals of the beautification plan accomplished. She requested copies of the Entrance Beautification Plan be distributed to councilors and LTD Board members. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the involvement of the State Community Solutions Team (CST) in facilitating the review and approval of the Oregon Department of Transportation for system routing, Mr. Viggiano confirmed that the CST has been working with LTD and was interested in assisting with the project. Ms. Nathanson said that continued government investments in improvements to the corridor were warranted because it would continue to be important to public transit whether the system was a BRT system or a typical bus system. Mr. Kelly emphasized his support for the BRT system and his support for funding for future phases. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the corridor was important, but to him it was only important in the context of a larger system. He said that he had been looking for the type of specificity outlined in the Planning Commission's communication to the council and supported those recommendations. Mr. Kelly said it was important to him that "a flavor" of the council's proposed TransPlan text regarding BRT, as it applied to Eugene only, be incorporated into the IGA. He cited the commitment of to full build out over the 20-year planning period as an example. Mr. Kelly said that the project description lacked mention of a neighborhood feeder line associated with the pilot phase, and its frequency of service. He asked that information be included. Mr. Pap~ confirmed with LTD staff that LTD had budgeted $2 million for Phase 2. He asked for information about the status of the route in Glenwood. Ms. Hocken said that the proposal was accepted by the property owners as the best of the alternatives other than "no build" option. She thought the property owners knew how much LTD had done to accommodate their concerns and were comfortable with Phase 1. Ms. Hocken added that LTD was working with the City of Springfield on planning for Glenwood, and she hoped the plan that resulted spoke to the ultimate BRT aligmnent in the area. Mr. Viggiano noted that at Mr. Meisner's suggestion, LTD had put money aside to buy land as it came available from willing sellers to build toward a full BRT corridor. Mr. Rayor asked if the City or LTD had a commitment from the University to allow the development of a bicycle system on its property as a substitute for future on-street bicycle paths on Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Viggiano said that no written commitment had been secured, but he thought the University was committed to the concept. Mr. Rayor asked about the potential of dedicating lanes in areas where buses and cars would mix as HOV lanes rather than as dedicated buslanes. Mr. Viggiano said that such sections were limited in number. In some cases, such as along major corridors, HOV lanes could make sense. Mr. Rayor encouraged the completion of bicycle connections in the Glenwood area. Ms. Bettman endorsed Ms. Nathanson's recommendation regarding the involvement of the CST. Ms. Bettman noted her support for BRT but said that she had several conditions of approval she would like to recommend. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to come back to the City Council with a final motion for BRT approval, which includes a proposal for funding City staff time dedicated to the project, preferably from the $11 million, an IGA that preserves the City's authority over fundamental elements of the project within the city limits; a provision in the Intergovernmental Agreement and/or project description that the final project within the city limits be consistent with the provisions that the Eugene City Council has adopted for the BRT policy in TransPlan. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment that the concepts in the letter to the council from Board President Hilary Wylie be incorporated into IGA. The friendly amendment was acceptable to Ms. Bettman. Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion addressed the operations of the public transit system, such as timing and frequency and which feeder routes connected at which stops. Ms. Bettman said she did not go into that level of detail. She did not anticipate the council would be scheduling buses; rather, she was more concerned with issues such as traffic lanes and historic trees. Ms. Nathanson wanted to be clear that the City's authority did not extend to bus scheduling. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's motion, Mr. Hamm said that in the spirit of the transportation partnership, there was an expectation that a certain level of staff contribution would be shared between agencies. He noted LTD's involvement in the rail station discussions and other issues related to larger community issues. He said that it would be quite a change from the existing partnership if the two agencies were to begin to calculate staff time spent. He thought it did make sense for LTD to secure and pay for the technical skills of City engineering staff given the City's jurisdiction and knowledge of the affected streets. Mayor Torrey wanted to continue to maintain a relationship of trust and willingness in such partnerships. In addition, the motion called for full build out and he questioned that need if PeaceHealth moved out of its current location. He suggested that the BRT system might eventually be a circular route that served a new hospital and Gateway to the north. Mayor Torrey did not want to tie the hands of the LTD board. He said if the motion passed and it did not work, staff needed to return to the council and tell it that. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Hamm's comments, and said that it would be difficult and unwieldy for the two agencies to attempt to charge and reimburse each other for all the work their staffs did. Ms. Bettman said that because LTD's plans were so "bare bones" and so many issues had been put off until federal funding was secured, she believed it would require more City staff time to resolve those issues. She said that the motion was worded broadly enough for the City Manager to provide the council with a projection of costs and potential sources of funding. Ms. Bettman said the City Manager could provide the council with an idea of what kind of commitment that represented on the part of the City, and the council could decide whether to fund the project. Mr. Pap~ did not support the motion if it "hamstrung" LTD or committed the City's partners in TransPlan to policies they did not support. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the comments of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hamm; however, he pointed out that the motion merely called for a funding plan. Regarding Mayor Torrey's remarks about possible route changes, Mr. Kelly said that the council's adopted motion related to the BRT policy in TransPlan specifically addressed build out in terms of number of system miles. It acknowledged the routing had not been settled. Mr. Kelly said that he was seeking a mutual commitment from both the City and LTD that the system was more than the pilot corridor. He did not think that the council's action committed Springfield or Lane County as it constrained the effect of the adopted motion to Eugene. Mr. Rayor was not comfortable with the third element of Ms. Bettman's motion, saying he did not want the council to mandate build out of a system that was likely dependent on future federal funding. He also wanted to give LTD the benefit of the doubt and believed that the district wanted to build the best possible system without being told to. He thought that was a "given." Ms. Nathanson understood the reasons the system was proposed to be phased, and said it would be terrific if LTD could think of some other way to do the system so it looked more finished. She wanted LTD to borrow against other funds or find some other transportation dollars to bring other funding options to the table. She thought it would be better if the pilot corridor, from the beginning, "looked exciting." Ms. Taylor said she was skeptical about the entire BRT concept, believing it was proceeding because "its engine was wound up and it was going." Her skepticism was shared by many she spoke with. However, she supported the motion because she thought the costs to the City should be considered. Responding to Mr. Rayor, Ms. Taylor said that if the system was in Eugene, it was not just LTD's system. The motion passed, 6:1, Mr. Pap8 voting no. D.CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM F Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to approve Item F on the Consent Calendar, a Resolution Supporting Application for State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Matching Grant Funds. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young)