Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/23/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall April 23, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mayor Torrey called the council's attention to a letter distributed to the council prior to the meeting from the United States Department of Transportation to Ken Hamm, General Manager of Lane Transit District, regarding the status of the federal funding for Bus Rapid Transit. He said that Mr. Hamm would meet with the federal government in May 2001 to determine how rigid the time limits for funding were. Mr. Meisner called the council's attention to an invitation from CentroLatino Americano for its La Noch~ Cultural on June 9, 2001. He encouraged councilors to attend the event and to let Human Rights Program staff know they needed tickets. Ms. Nathanson thanked Neighborhood Program staff for providing her with information on the Neighborhood Matching Grants Program. She intended to provide comment on the information provided and on the grant criteria. Ms. Nathanson asked the City Manager to follow-up on an issue she was concerned about, that of commercial design requirements for large-scale commercial buildings. She wanted to talk to Planning Division staff about what was possible for the City to do, in the immediate short-term, to help influence and achieve better site design and better building design for commercial development. Mr. Meisner referred Ms. Nathanson to the new issue of New Urban News, which included an article about a Home Depot development in Portland with an aesthetically pleasing design. Mr. Farr had no items. Mr. Pap~ commended Mr. Kelly and Mayor Torrey for their acting ability, as demonstrated at "The Follies" event on April 21. He said the event was a lot of fun. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Papd said he was unable to attend a conference of the Institute for Sustainable Ethics and Economics in Eugene May 18-20 and asked if another councilor could attend instead. Ms. Taylor indicated interest. Also in reference to the Institute for Sustainable Ethics and Economics, Mr. Kelly asked if the council was willing to consider a contingency request from the institute to fund facilitators for a pre-conference gathering called the Future Search on Sustainability. The event was scheduled for May 18-20. Council members indicated willingness to hear the request. Ms. Taylor mentioned some recent constituent contacts regarding the possible elimination of the bookmobile, possible reductions in neighborhood newsletters, and the proposed relocation of Sacred Heart. She noted suggestions that the hospital build on the Eugene Clinic property, which seemed like a good idea to her. Mr. Rayor had no items. Ms. Bettman had no items. City Manager Jim Johnson had no items. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding the potential the council could take a position on legislation related to seismic building protection, Mr. Meisner said the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations would consider the issue at its next meeting, which was April 26. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 2 Work Session B. Work Session: 2001-2002 City Council Goals Work Plan Mr. Johnson introduced the topic, reminded the council it held several work sessions on its goals and would tonight consider the work plan items and action priorities associated with the goals. Senior Management Analyst Jan Bohman reported that some of the items in the work plan would require additional resources, and that was noted in the work plan. She said that staff would return to the council with interim progress reports over the two-year goal period, followed by a final report at the end of the period. Mr. Johnson added that the interim reports would address the goals as a whole. There would be quarterly reports on other items in the plan. He said that the executives had discussed the way in which progress on items on the secondary list would be reported to the council, and staff would return to the council for some input on that how that reporting would occur. Mayor Torrey called for general comments from the council. Mr. Meisner expressed a concern about the mismatch between the budget cycle and the goals cycle. Mr. Johnson agreed it was an issue. The goals process was timed to involve new councilors taking office in January. He had no solution to offer. Mr. Meisner did not have one either. Mr. Rayor said that although the City Council supports sustainable growth, that was not implicitly stated in the goals. He did not perceive, for example, that the City was using energy-efficient vehicles such as bicycles. He was unsure where that would be captured. He wanted the City to set a good example for energy use. Mr. Johnson responded that as the council reviewed the individual goals, Mr. Rayor should take advantage of that review to include input into the work plan. He noted that the council would have a work session on energy conservation in July, including fuel conservation, and noted the distribution of information to the council regarding other energy-saving measures the City was taking. Regarding Mr. Rayor's remarks, Ms. Taylor suggested it would be useful to have the director of Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority speak to the council about energy use. Ms. Taylor questioned why the council was going to wait until 2002 to discuss new sources of revenue. Mr. Kelly asked for council concurrence that the secondary list be included as an appendix in the work plan. There was no objection. Mr. Kelly noted that page 10 of the work plan did not reflect a change the council had made, which was to change "Review City provision of regional services" to "Review City role in provision of regional services." Mr. Pap~ called for a semi-annual work session dedicated solely to reviewing progress on the council goals in an off-site location. Mr. Johnson recommended that Mr. Pap~ ask the council to direct staff to arrange such a session. Mr. Farr agreed that the timing of the goals and budget processes was unfortunate, and asked if anything could be done. Mr. Johnson said that it was not a problem to adjust the budget in response to the goals unless a new council changed those goals, which could create a substantial change in the work plan. In reality, the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 3 Work Session sitting council determined what happened, so the council could begin its process earlier, acknowledging that change could occur. Ms. Nathanson said she found some of the action priorities more substantive than others in that some were specific as to work activities and others employed more uncertain terms, such as "research" and "investigate." The scale of the work program seemed to change from item to item, but she anticipated further refinement as the process continued. Mr. Johnson said that often, staff did additional investigation for the purpose of eliciting more direction from the council. He thought it a more appropriate approach than offering the council solutions now. Mayor Torrey asked the council president to place a motion on the floor, and recommended the council amend the motion to amend the work plan. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the 2001-2002 City Council Goals Work Plan as recommended. GOAL: SAFE COMMUNITY Action Priority: Prioritize and Implement next steps in Community Policing Mr. Meisner believed the goals were where the council placed extra effort and identified extra things to do, not a "portmanteau" for everything the council wanted accomplish. The priority did not represent a new effort. Mr. Meisner also did not perceive the implementation of AIRS improvement as a step toward implementing community policing. He said that similarly, the work plan item, Determine the feasibility ora budget indexing system for police staffing that is linked to community growth, did not bring the community closer to community policing. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Meisner's concerns. She said the action priority was a work plan item in its own right. The priority was specific, but the associated work plan items were "fuzzier." She requested information about the budget indexing system, as she did not recall discussion about such a system in the context of the goals. Mr. Johnson clarified the work plan items were suggestions from staff that the council might not have seen before; in terms of the budget indexing system, staff was stating that the resources to fully implement community policing were not available, and one technique to address that was to develop and apply a budget indexing system would allow more resources to be added to the service in the future. He said that staff would make clear the link between the item and the budget. Mr. Kelly thought the points made by Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman were well-taken. Regarding the indexing system, he thought it was worthwhile to examine. However, he could only support it in the broader context of all City services. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the work plan by moving the work plan item to the goal area Fair, Stable, and Adequate Financial Resources, and to broaden the departments and types of indexing. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly and indicated support for the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Fart regarding the impact of the motion on the staff work load, Mr. Johnson said that the motion complicated the issue somewhat but he agreed with Mr. Kelly that the concept was a good one. He thought that Finance staff would have to do further analysis to determine how to implement the motion. Mr. Fart liked the concept in the motion and asked if broadening its scope would detract from the importance of ensuring the City moved forward with community policing. Mr. Johnson said yes. He noted that the City already had the work load analysis for the Police Department; a similar work load analysis did not exist for other services at this time. Mr. Fart suggested the council could prioritize the services so the Police Department came first. Mr. Johnson said that would be a policy choice of the council. Mr. Papd also liked the concept behind the motion but questioned whether it would create public expectations about service delivery that the City would not have the resources to support. Mr. Johnson said that staff was suggesting with an index system that the City was so far behind in a certain program area that the City should apply the indexing system to certain services to ensure a regular, steady supply of resources to address the inadequacy. He pointed out that the work plan item stated the City would determine the feasibility of such an approach. Ms. Nathanson hoped the City did not apply the same type of indexing system to all services. She did not think the City had addressed the funding shortfall in policing successfully, and for that reason would have supported the item as a standalone item in this section. Ms. Nathanson said the nature of the problem was different from other services because it was an issue of catching up with a continued budget shortfall. Mr. Johnson indicated the indexing systems for different City services would be different given the different nature of those services. Mr. Kelly thought Ms. Nathanson's points were well-taken. The motion would broaden the potential indexes to be used. He did not want to imply in his motion that the indexing process would be applied to all services in all departments, but that the executives would identify the services within each department that were furthest behind. Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. He thought a budget indexing system linked to community growth far too unsophisticated a model. He said if the item was moved and broadened to encompass other programs, it might be a way to integrate the City's service profiles into the council goals work plan, with factors that measure not only how well the City is doing but also the needs involved. Mr. Meisner suggested staff was trying to tell the council that one of its work plan items needs to be responsive to the Hobson Report; if so, that should be explicit. Ms. Taylor agreed with the comments made by other councilors. She supported the motion and agreed the item should be revised and moved. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City really knew where it wanted to go with community policing. Mr. Johnson said staff had the same question, and referred Mr. Pap~ to the description of the role of the mayor and council as it related to the work plan item: Review the updated strategic plan including the vision, mission, and staff analysis of gaps in community policing services in a council work session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~ about where he wanted to go with community policing, Chief Jim Hill said that he had some concern about how it was defined. He had some ideas, but thought it was important to find out what the community wanted to do given the limited resource base. He perceived community policing as more than discrete program items, saying it was broader than that and should be reflected in everything the department did. Chief Hill said that the recommendations for creating a process were predicated on the fact department staff and resources were constantly changing. He suggested that the Police Commission was another venue for the discussion of community policing. Mr. Pap~ did not know to how to measure gaps unless a threshold level of service was established. Chief Hill responded that got to the question of the base level of community expectations. Currently the department was so underresourced it was focused on the emergency level of response. Ms. Nathanson noted a request before the Budget Committee for funding for foot patrols and said she did not want to start a new program only to learn that it was not the right approach. Chief Hill clarified that the Budget Committee was being asked to fund a foot patrol in midtown, an area which lent itself more readily to the deployment of foot patrols than other areas. In the long-term, the department wanted to determine where else in the community it made sense to deploy foot patrols. Mr. Johnson added that City staff did not see the budget request as dependent on a larger analysis. He pointed out that the Budget Committee funded the Whiteaker patrol without a fuller analysis because it thought it was a good idea. Ms. Nathanson thought it was unfortunate that the process was not more integrated. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He asked if the foot patrol was the next logical step the community would take in community policing. He anticipated a larger community dialogue and more discussion by the Police Commission. He wanted the City to anticipate needs and not just be reactive when a community organization or area of town requested service. Mr. Meisner reiterated his objections to inclusion of the AIRS improvements. Mr. Johnson responded that staff included the item because the tool was not currently available, and once the improvements were available staff wanted to determine how they could be used in community policing. Mr. Meisner pointed out the item merely stated, "Implement AIRS improvements" where it should read "Find AIRS improvements that will implement community policing." Mr. Johnson suggested the council could move the item to the secondary list. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the work plan by moving the AIRS work plan item to the secondary list. The motion passed, 6:2, Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. Ms. Bettman thought the City was already doing a great deal in terms of implementing community policing, noting its partnerships with social service agencies. She said the City was not getting credit for that in terms of community policing. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's comments about the budget request for foot patrols, Ms. Bettman said that staff was going to return with a proposal for funding and then the Budget Committee would make a recommendation to the council. She did not think that the midtown foot patrol was just a community policing issue, as it also addressed issues such as the state of downtown, public safety, and economic development. She was pleased to see both a long-term approach and suggestions to address the immediate need. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Chief Hill reiterated the need for community dialogue about what constituted community policing. He pointed out that new ideas required new resources, or the reallocation of existing resources. Action Priority: Address prevention of hillside danger Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the work plan by adding a bullet that read "Explore building code changes, for example, roofing materials for improved fire safety. Work at the State level as appropriate." Ms. Nathanson suggested alternatively, the text "Investigate relationship of building and roofing materials to wildland fire safety, review the current local situation, report to the council." Preferring Ms. Nathanson's suggestion, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion, and Ms. Bettman withdrew her second. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the work plan by adding a bullet that read "Investigate relationship of building and roofing materials to wildland fire safety, review the current local situation, report to the council." Ms. Nathanson spoke in support of her motion, saying she wanted to first analyze the current situation, working with the local construction industry, to determine whether fire retardant roofing materials were being used extensively or if something needed to be done. Mr. Meisner asked if the motion also addressed landscaping. He wanted the City to look at broad code changes that fostered fire safety. Chief Tallon said he appreciated the approach reflected in the motion, but the problem with legislating plant growth and vegetation was that there was no supportive regulatory framework at the State or County level. Currently, the department used educational materials and cooperation to help homeowners understand what a safe landscape is. Mr. Meisner asked if staff was stating there was no research to support an educational effort that told citizens they should not have vegetation close to their homes. Mr. Johnson said staff had not done the needed research. Mr. Meisner wanted more research. Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner to include investigation of vegetation to wildland safety in the motion. Mr. Farr thought citizens would welcome information about safe landscaping because they wanted to protect their property. He said that garden centers should be employed in any education effort related to landscaping. Regarding the issue of roofing, he said most roofing materials are now have a fire rating of Class A, and people were not using cedar extensively for roofing because of its high cost and low availability. Mr. Johnson said staff would research whether the City had the authority to supercede the State building code. Mr. Rayor noted the County's requirement for a 30-foot vegetation setback at the time of platting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson reported that the telephone warning system was in place already and so was not included in the work plan. Chief Tallon noted the system had been used already in recent emergency police responses. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding item 1, Consider ordinance changes regulating use of personalfireworks in specific areas, Mr. Johnson said that he had the authority to restrict fireworks activities in the city under current law. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend the work plan by adding item 1 to the secondary list. Mr. Fart said he seconded the motion because of the City Manager's existing authority. Mr. Johnson said that some sections of existing ordinances could be changed to make that authority more effective, but the council needed to decide if the item rose to the level of the work plan. Otherwise, he would merely ask the council to consider possible changes to ordinances in the future. Mr. Kelly wanted to know more about possible ordinance changes that could make the City more effective. He was concerned about moving the item as the secondary list was just a list the council would monitor. However, he would not oppose the motion. Mr. Meisner concurred, given that Mr. Johnson would return to the council with any recommended ordinance changes. Ms. Nathanson said that because the council would see the result of any staff work, she was comfortable removing the item. She said that her concern was less about the ad hoc prohibition of fireworks for weather conditions than about the fact that nonprofit organizations relied on fireworks sales for the bulk of their fund- raising. She wanted to see those organizations gradually move away from the sale of fireworks, which could sometimes be hazardous, and employ other fund-raising methods. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Action Priority: Enhance readiness for major emergencies Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the work plan by changing item 4 to read "Consider establishing an ongoing Comprehensive Emergency Management Program to coordinate all City emergency management activities." Mr. Meisner hoped the staff work would include consideration of whether the position involved needed to be fully funded. He did not think the City needed to be its own emergency management agency. Mr. Pap~ was pleased to see the item included, saying that a community of Eugene's size should have a permanent emergency program. Noting the reference in item 3 to a multi-agency emergency response, Mr. Pap~ asked who that involved. Chief Tallon responded that the focus of the item was on regional cooperation, although federal agencies were likely to be involved in an expanded emergency response exercise. Mr. Johnson added that agency MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 8 Work Session involvement depended on the exercise that was designed. Mr. Papd hoped other agencies cooperated with Eugene, and that Eugene cooperated with other agencies. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to move item 2 to the secondary list. The motion passed, 5:1:2, Mr. Fart and Mr. Rayor voting no, Mr. Meisner being out of the room at the time the vote was taken. Action Priority: Improve Street Safety Mr. Fart said the work plan did not encompass the danger of bicycle and automobile conflicts, and suggested it be modified to include continued improvement of the safety of cyclists on the streets. He said that pedestrian/bicycle conflicts were also an issue. He was unsure how to modify the work plan and called on Mr. Rayor for assistance. Mr. Kelly endorsed Mr. Fart's remarks. He said staff could be asked to follow-up on constituent input about methods used in other communities and countries to facilitate pedestrian/bicycle safety. Mr. Kelly referred to item 1, regarding the Photo Red Light Program. He wanted to rephrase the item because he was troubled by the strength of the wording, which called on the council to implement the program. He said there was debate about the merits of the program in some quarters. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the work plan by rephrasing the second and third bullets under item 1 to read "Schedule council discussion on Photo Red Light Program." Mr. Pap~ pointed out that the council would review the program through the budget process and would have a discussion of on-the-ground implementation. Mr. Johnson said there were some policy issues related to the program. He believed the City would need council support before allocating staff time and money to the program. He said that the issue could also be addressed by the Police Commission. Mr. Pap~ endorsed a Police Commission discussion of the issue. Mr. Rayor said he supported the Photo Red Light Program and endorsed the existing text. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Johnson's remarks about the policy issues involved. Mr. Meisner thought the discussion proposed by Mr. Kelly was a good idea but did not support it if it did not happen soon. He wanted to retain the current implementation schedule. Mr. Kelly agreed. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to add a third item that read "Investigate ways to reduce bicycle, motorized vehicle and pedestrian conflicts on street, paths, and sidewalks." MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Rayor envisioned a council work session or a white paper. Mr. Rayor said his focus was on keeping bicycle lanes properly striped and cleaned and establishing an educational process for bicyclists. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Rayor was discussing solutions. Mayor Torrey recommended that staff develop a white paper, and schedule a work session if it seemed needed. Mr. Meisner said he was okay with a white paper but wanted to ensure that staff brought any contemplated changes back to the council before they were implemented. Mr. Fart said a white paper was fine. He wanted to protect pedestrians from cyclists and vice versa. He called for a comprehensive look at the issues involved. Ms. Nathanson said that Mr. Rayor had expressed interest to her in the bullets listed under Pedestrian Safety. She asked Mr. Rayor if he felt comfortable that those bullets would be addressed. Mr. Rayor said that the bullets could be changed to focus on bicycle safety instead of pedestrian safety. Mr. Johnson suggested that staff do some additional research and identify options. Mr. Rayor said he would share his ideas with the staff and council via e-mail. Mr. Pap~ supported the motion, sharing with the council his own experience with a bicycle-pedestrian confrontation. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor did not think there was enough in the work plan related to pedestrian safety. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the work plan by adding a bullet that read "Investigate ways to improve pedestrian safety at street crossings." Ms. Bettman supported the motion, saying that motorists did not stop at crosswalks clearly marked in the downtown mall and there should be more community education. She said that motorists did not even stop for students using designated crosswalks near schools. Mr. Rayor said laws related to pedestrian right-of-way did not work as people did not obey them. Mr. Meisner said that he had to work hard to get yield signs installed on Broadway at Willamette and staff had been very resistant to that. Only pedestrian crossing signs were installed. For that reason, he supported the motion, and hoped more safe conditions could be created. Mr. Fart asked if pedestrians had the right-of-way when crossing against a light. Chief Hill said no. If jaywalking, a pedestrian must yield to traffic. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend item 2 by deleting the phrase "with available funding" from the second bullet. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY GROWTH AND CHANGE MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 10 Work Session Action Priority: Prioritize and implement next steps in Growth Management There was no objection from the council to a suggestion from Mr. Kelly to delete the second item under Resource, timing or other issues. Ms. Bettman referred to the third item under Resource, timing and o&er issues and suggested that prioritization of items in the post-Land Use Code Update work program could be done prior to the effective date of the code. Mr. Johnson said that any confusion would be cleared up later in the week when the council made a decision on the effective date of the Land Use Code Update. Referring to the first work plan item, Develop a funding, implementation, and regulatory plan for nodal development, Mr. Farr said the Bethel Triangle in west Eugene had the potential to become a node. He thought it was also suitable for inclusion in an urban renewal district, and hoped the discussion of that possibility would first occur at the Planning Commission. He said urban renewal would be a way to move forward to improve the area in question. Mr. Papd noted PeaceHealth's announcement to move to north Eugene since the development of the council's goals and suggested that move should be addressed in the work plan. Mr. Johnson said that staff could develop language to recognize the effort that would be devoted to the move. There was general concurrence that staff would develop another work plan item. Action Priority: Foster affordable housing, including subsidized low-income housing Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the work plan by modifying items 1, 2, 3, and 4 by replacing the word "affordable" with the words "very Iow-income and Iow-income." Ms. Bettman believed the City needed to direct its limited resources where it could do the most good. She said the affordable monthly housing payment for someone of median income, including utilities, was $1,085; for 80 percent of median, it was $727; and for 50 percent of median, it was $485. The two latter figures were specific to the Iow-income and very Iow-income. Someone earning minimum wage on a full-time basis could afford a house payment of $338, far below the 50 percent figure. Mr. Kelly pointed out that "low-income" encompassed "very Iow-income," and suggested as a friendly amendment that the motion read "low-income." Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Fart said that the need for housing affordability was not limited to the very poor. Those at the median income need assistance with housing as well. He said that the City's efforts needed to be more across-the-board, and for that reason opposed the amendment. Referring to item 2, Fulfill the goal of creating 100 units of affordable housing, Ms. Nathanson noted that the City's efforts in providing affordable housing were often in reaction to the opportunities it was presented with. She said that sometimes a housing project was not strictly income-related, but focused on special needs, such as housing head-injured individuals. Those developments generally fit the definition of Iow-income. She did not want to eliminate such opportunities in the future and asked if they were included in the 100 unit goal. Mr. Johnson said MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 11 Work Session that such programs were generally associated with Iow-income housing programs and were included in the goal. Mr. Pap8 applauded the goal of constructing 100 affordable housing units annually but suggested the City step back and coordinate a more comprehensive approach to the provision of housing that included other agencies. Mr. Kelly, a member of the Housing Policy Board, responded that such coordination occurred now. The City does not build Iow-income housing itself, but instead works with a variety of nonprofit agencies and other governmental units on housing proposals. He said that Ms. Nathanson's remarks about what available opportunities were well-taken. Regarding the issue of owner-occupied versus rental housing, Mr. Kelly said the City Council establishes the organization's direction through the Consolidated Plan. Mr. Johnson added that Eugene and Springfield coordinate on an action plan with the cooperation of Lane County. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He was frustrated with the City's housing programs. He asserted that the community's costs for building Iow-income housing were higher than other communities and the regulatory barriers facing projects "extraordinary." He thought the City made the problem worse, citing as an example the staff proposal to acquire properties near the Roosevelt yards for expansion of police services; those properties were in a stable, Iow-income neighborhood with Iow cost housing. City purchase of those properties would force those residents to relocate, possibly at City expense. Mr. Meisner said that the City also facilitated the conversion of Iow-income neighborhoods near downtown to commercial purposes. He said the work plan was focused on housing construction, not housing allowances or other approaches. Mr. Meisner complained that "We never do anything different." Mr. Kelly agreed with some of Mr. Meisner's remarks. He also agreed with Mr. Farr's remarks but suggested rather than oppose the amendment, Mr. Farr suggest another work program item to address the broader class of "affordable." Mr. Farr said he could support the motion if it did not impact items 1 and 4. Mr. Farr moved to amend the amendment to the work plan so it was no applicable to items 1 and 4. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Farr voting no. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Johnson said that the council was required by State law to review each housing project exemption proposal individually as they came before the council. He said that the council could direct him to assume that authority. Mr. Farr indicated that he would come back to the council with a work plan item related to housing affordability. Mr. Johnson asked the council to reconsider the action priority title given the changes it made to the work items. He recommended Increase the supply of low-income housing throughout the community. The council accepted the suggestion. Action Priority: Provide a variety of additional housing in the downtown and provide a stable downtown and neighborhoods adjacent to downtown by preserving existing housing and residential uses MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 12 Work Session Ms. Nathanson raised a concern about the owner-renter ratio, and said she did not see anything about monitoring that, analyzing it, or reporting to the council. Mr. Johnson said that the issue was not brought up in the council's initial goal discussions. Ms. Bettman recollected that the item was placed on the future work program for the Land Use Code Update. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the target date for item 1, Review adjacent neighborhood plans and recommend policy amendments to promote housing preservation, was 2002, and said she thought the council would see something sooner than that. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the work item was specific to neighborhood plans, not code changes; the staff work that was in process was focused on code changes. Mr. Johnson anticipated that staff work he had discussed previously with Ms. Bettman regarding the subject would be done within the next two months. He said that the target date for the work plan item was predicated on available resources. He did not think the work could be done before the target date, and acknowledged residential conversions could occur between now and that date. Referring to the additional resources needed to accomplish the work plan items, Ms. Bettman wanted the City to examine fee increases in zone changes and land use applications. Mr. Johnson said that those fees were currently being looked at. He did not think they belonged in the action priorities. Mr. Johnson indicated staff would provide a memorandum on the progress of that effort to the council. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the work plan by adding a bullet that read "Analyze owner-renter ratio in downtown and adjacent neighborhoods and report to the council on ways to work toward an appropriate mix to preserve or improve neighborhood quality and safety." Mr. Johnson said that the work plan item could be quite resource-intensive, and staff would return to the council with options for proceeding and the associated resource needs. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Action Priority: Create and implement economic development policies to generate family- wage jobs for local residents Referring to item 2, Mr. Kelly suggested that the council inform the work plan item with its sustainability resolution and Growth Management Study Policy 16. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the work plan by revising item 1 to read "Prepare a discussion paper on potential economic development strategies, tools, and actions based on sustainability for council consideration." Mr. Kelly said that there may be resources, such as local and national organizations, that would be willing to provide grant funds to underwrite the effort he contemplated. He thought that could supplant some of the resources identified in the work program. He thought the effort would also bring citizens of opposite points of view together. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 13 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said that job loss in the community was a concern to her, and she hoped over time the council could discuss that topic more broadly in terms of community economic health. She noted that the council had some discussions over the last few months about what was economic development, and encouraged staff to listen to the tapes of those meetings for some of the specific ideas suggested by the council. Mayor Torrey noted that he was invited to the barbeque commemorating the closing of HMT. He said it was not a fun event. Workers were very concerned about how they would find new jobs. He said that the community had severe problems the council needed to address. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He said that without the input of the sustainability principles and the growth management policies, the priority was essentially a vague form of "boosterism." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman believed the action priority called for the creation of new jobs rather than providing for support of existing jobs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the work plan by changing the action priority to read "Create and implement economic development policies that maintain and generate family-wage jobs." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Referring to item 2, Explore collaborative efforts with likely partners including Lane County, University of Oregon, and Lane Community College, Mr. Pap~ believed there were other community organizations that would welcome being asked what Eugene does that takes away from or contributes to sustainable community development. He thought the City would get plenty of response. Mr. Meisner hoped the City could find another way to do things, saying he preferred not to create an advisory committee, hire a consultant, or spend a great deal of money to prepare a context report. He thought the City had access to the needed information. Mr. Johnson said that those steps were not "set in stone." Ms. Taylor preferred to delete the references to the committee, consultant, and report. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the work program by striking the last three sentences in the section titled Additional resources required to accomplish. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Johnson interpreted the motion as directing staff to take small steps and return to the council for more direction. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Action Priority: Adopt a new Downtown Plan and begin implementation of the Greater Downtown Vision MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 14 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the work plan by adding a work plan item that read "Investigate funding opportunities and development of a downtown fixed rail street car." Mr. Kelly questioned the inclusion of the item in the work plan given the work that was already occurring through the downtown visioning project. He wanted to study the feasibility of such a system, but wanted to do so on an incremental basis that did not assume an outcome. In response to Mr. Kelly's concern, Ms. Bettman suggested the motion be modified to read "Explore the feasibility and funding of a downtown fixed rail street car." Ms. Taylor accepted the modification as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said that the streetcar was not just a transit strategy, but an economic development strategy and a downtown strategy as well. She said that there was some interest in the concept among downtown businesses and she planned to meet with them to discuss it further. She wanted to explore funding possibilities. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the level of effort required to carry out the motion, saying that if the council was seeking information about the system's feasibility, that could be addressed within the existing work load. However, he was concerned about exploring another option when Bus Rapid Transit was not yet implemented and there was a process in place to institute a downtown shuttle. He suggested that staff begin with an informational memorandum. Mr. Pap~ questioned whether the provision of such a streetcar was the role of the City. Noting his support for mass transit, Mr. Rayor believed that a fixed rail streetcar was already addressed in the downtown vision and he preferred to keep it at the planning level until the council had more information and could appropriately move the item to its goals work plan. He said that Ms. Bettman was moving forward with one implementation item out of fifty and he did not think that was the right approach. Ms. Bettman said that Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer had indicated the streetcar was not a transit responsibility, and that there was grant funding available that would help the City underwrite the costs. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. Due to a lack of time, the council deferred the remainder of the agenda to a future meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 15 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 16 Work Session