Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/06/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall August 6, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Papd, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: City Manager Evaluation Lauren Chouinard, Director of the Human Resource and Risk Services Department, joined the council for the evaluation of City Manager Jim Johnson. He noted the contents of the meeting packet as it regarded the agenda item, a booklet that contained the manager's self-evaluation, the councilors' evaluations, feedback from staff, and compensation data. Mayor Torrey solicited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Nathanson thought the manager was doing a good job in a difficult situation. She said the community was active and diverse groups had many viewpoints. The council was divided as well, and that complicated the manager's job. She called for more professional opinions, cautions, and suggestions from the manager. Ms. Nathanson indicated interest in further discussion of strategic planning, particularly as it regarded the timing of issues that came to the council and how issues were presented to the public. Mr. Farr endorsed Ms. Nathanson's comments. He noted the council's heavy workload and the many issues it had direct involvement in. He thought the staff workload was also heavy, and that work was being done in a timely and professional manner. Mr. Farr said that he had given the manager a strong endorsement in his evaluation. Mr. Meisner noted the difficulty of such evaluations, particularly when his expectations were set so high by past performance. He termed his evaluation a look at the manager's performance over the last year. He said while he had no issues with Mr. Johnson's performance, he continued to be frustrated by the difficulty of securing information from departments, citing the status of the train station as an example, and about complaint management. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson: He liked having options, but he also wanted the MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session manager's analysis and advice. Mr. Meisner wanted the City to be more proactive in communicating with the community about what was important to the council and what it was doing. Ms. Bettman observed that none of her issues were new to Mr. Johnson as she had discussed them with him in the past. She thought the evaluation difficult in that the council was evaluating the manager, its liaison to the department heads and staff. The performance of the staff reflected on the manager, who was the only employee in the council's purview. Ms. Bettman thought Mr. Johnson's management skills excellent and the difficulty he faced was the broad diversity of opinion on the council. She thought it important the manager not align himself with any faction but that he provide the council with unbiased neutral information on which to base its decisions. Ms. Bettman commended Mr. Johnson's commitment to diversity and hoped his future management appoint- ments continued to reflect it. She commended him for his extraordinary commitment to the community, as evidenced by his participation at community events. Ms. Bettman emphasized her comments regarding the promotion of a broader range of expertise on staff, moving away from the status quo, and encouraging innovation. She expressed disappointment there were no comments from the bargaining units. Ms. Bettman also regretted the lack of comment by employees and asked that staff examine ways to increase participation at the staff level. Mr. Johnson indicated comments were solicited, but those solicited did not respond. Mr. Rayor thought Mr. Johnson did an exemplary job. He said the manager exceeded his expectations. He cited his remarks in the evaluation regarding the fact he could not recall a time during the last year when he had been upset with the manager. To the public, he said that Eugene was a $300 million business with 1,400 employees. The City had experienced some reverses as well as some successes, and Mr. Rayor thought it difficult to attribute either to a single individual. Given Mr. Johnson's success in managing the organization, he thought he should be compensated accordingly. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding the manager's responsibility for staff's performance. He would have ranked the manager higher if he was evaluating only his performance. He echoed Mr. Meisner's comments regarding follow-up on information requests and hoped improvement could be made in this area. He concurred with Ms. Nathanson that Mr. Johnson should feel free to offer his opinion and advice to the council. Mr. Kelly offered as a caveat he did not think it appropriate for Mr. Johnson to give that advice through the front page of the newspaper, as occurred with PeaceHealth, which could short-circuit further council discussion. Mr. Pap~ thought the citizens of Eugene should know the organization was in good hands under Mr. Johnson. He appreciated the work done by Mr. Johnson in light of the diverse points of view on the council. He commended Mr. Johnson's commitment to the organization and hoped the employees were aware of it. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about the internal cost of implementing Mr. Johnson's decision regarding the display of the Christmas tree and hoped that the situation resulted in education. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mr. Pap6 said that Mr. Johnson had been taken by surprise by the recent complications related to the construction of the East Bank Bicycle Path, and he thought that both he and Mr. Johnson should have been more aware of the situation. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the job was difficult when councilors had such diverse points of view. She thought the manager should be both neutral as well as give the council his opinion if it was related to the consequences of an action the council was contemplating. She did not think it appropriate for the manager to influence the council's decisions. Ms. Taylor agreed as to the difficulty of securing information from staff and said on one occasion, after trying repeatedly to get information about a date, she asked Mr. Kelly if he could locate it in his filing system, and he did. In the absence of council clerical help or offices, it would be good if the council had a way to get information right away, when it was needed. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the council's goals were sometimes "twisted" to fit "what staff already wanted to do." She thought in some cases the goals were broad enough to be interpreted any way one wanted to interpret them. Ms. Taylor said the council received more options from staff than it did in the first two years of her term. However, sometimes the council was told "you either you do this or do that, and this is the consequence if you don't do this," and Ms. Taylor thought there were usually other approaches available. Mayor Torrey said in the past, he heard from the bargaining units and staff when they were upset with the manager. He heard almost nothing but positive comments from the staff about the manager. Mayor Torrey said he also wanted staff to offer the council a wide range of options, but he wanted the manager to tell the council what he, as the chief executive officer, believed was in the best interest of the organization. Mayor Torrey recognized Mr. Johnson's high standing with his interjurisdictional peers and their apprecia- tion of his willingness to work with them to find intergovernmental solutions. Mayor Torrey noted that Mr. Johnson could retire early in 2002 if he choose. He questioned where Eugene would go to find a replacement for Mr. Johnson. He did not want the responsibility of selecting Mr. Johnson's replacement. Mayor Torrey credited Mr. Johnson for bringing the federal courthouse to Eugene, and for his ability in getting the appropriate level of Congressional involvement in that decision. Mayor Torrey said that Mr. Johnson spent more time with the council than any of his predecessors, and he encouraged the council to discuss their issues with the manager in their one-on-one meetings. He said that Mr. Johnson did an excellent job. Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Johnson about the organization's networking with the State. She said that often the City was frustrated by State administrative or legislative action, and asked how much he worked with other city managers around the state, and if Eugene could benefit from more participation from the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) or a large cities group. Mr. Johnson said he had not spent much time with other MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session city managers. From the staff perspective, the City's LOC involvement was good. He had a growing relationship with Bob DeLong, City Manager of Salem. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation that the manager supported the staff involvement at LOC, which benefitted the City legislatively as well as in other areas. She asked the manager to let the council know if there were other things that could be done. Mr. Farr termed Mr. Johnson the top professional in the room. He thought the manager's performance should be recognized by an increase in his compensation. He clarified some details of the manager's current compensation package with Mr. Chouinard, and indicated his intent to offer a motion to raise to the manager's salary to Step 6. Mr. Pap6 commended the manager's work with the budget. He asked the manager for a different goals- setting process, suggesting the council's goals review occur twice yearly at a venue other than City Hall in a retreat setting with no other agenda items. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pap6 about the goals process, although he thought the process had improved and it was going in the right direction. Mr. Kelly indicated support for a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) to the manager's salary. However, he did not support a step increase because the manager was above the regional average and because of the divided viewpoint of the manager's performance as expressed in the evaluation. Ms. Taylor supported a COLA and opposed a step increase, saying that Mr. Johnson's salary was high already. Mr. Rayor determined from Mr. Chouinard that no other employees in the organization received bonuses other than for extraordinary overtime. Mr. Rayor supported a step increase and indicated discomfort with bonuses, saying that what applied to manager should apply to all management staff. He noted the high amount of overtime put in by Mr. Johnson over the course of the past year, and thought that should be recognized by the step increase. Ms. Bettman supported a COLA increase. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Papa's concerns about the goal process, emphasizing his concerns about the timing of the process and its lack of connection to the budget process. He wanted there to be more connection between the council and the executives, saying that the only setting now was the goals process, which he did not think was the best setting. Mr. Meisner thought the manager made himself very available to the council. He relied on Mr. Johnson's political judgement as well as his professional judgement, and expressed appreciation for that advice and said he took it into consideration in his decision-making. Mr. Meisner said he would probably vote to support a step increase. He shared Mr. Rayor's concern about bonuses. He expressed concern about the recent trend to compensate the incoming manager at a higher base level than the salary of the former manager. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Regarding the goals-setting process, Mayor Torrey urged the councilors to identify the goals they wanted to accomplish, and generate support for those goals from their peers and the manager. He thought the goals- setting process had became so huge that certain goals had no champion, and therefore no way to be accomplished. Mayor Torrey shared some of Mr. Meisner's concerns regarding what he termed %ompensation creep," but said there was nothing to indicate the manager did not deserve a step increase. Mr. Meisner noted his concurrence. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve a COLA increase for the City Manager. Mr. Pap6 suggested the manager be compensated because he deserved a raise, not because the price of ketchup went up. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to advance the manager to Step 6 (a $6,218 annual increase). Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Chouinard that the total compensation increase would be approximately $10,000, an eight-percent increase over the past year. Ms. Nathanson thought the overtime hours put in by Mr. Johnson as a result of issues facing the City that must be addressed indicated that much active involvement was required on the part of the manager in managing the organization. She considered the step increase an acknowledgment that the job in Eugene was more difficult and complicated than it was in other cities. Mr. Pap6 asked Mr. Chouinard for comparative information about percentage increases in comparable private industries for chief executive officers. Mr. Chouinard indicated that such information was very difficult to procure from the private sector. Mr. Pap6 said that in his industry, merit increases averaged 3 percent to 3.5 percent. Mr. Chouinard indicated that the percentage increase related to the step increase was 5 percent, which was typical in the organization. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion because the manager started at Step 4, an escalated level, and because of the compensation in comparable communities, which indicated the manager was at or above the compensa- tion of other managers. She also thought there were some areas of serious concern that she wanted to see improvement in. Mr. Kelly said if he thought that the motion was reflective of the manager's performance alone, he would vote for the motion. Mayor Torrey indicated he would vote to support a step increase in the case of a tie vote. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mr. Pap~ moved to increase the manager's compensation by three percent. The mo- tion died for lack of a second. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Johnson thanked the council for its comments. He suggested that it might be more helpful to conduct evaluations on a more frequent basis, highlighting progress in the areas the council called out for improve- ment. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Johnson's suggestion, and further suggested that there be small, after-meeting evaluations following each council meeting. A committee could be formed to develop the criteria for those evaluations. That material could accumulate between evaluations. B.Work Session and Action: West Eugene Transportation Strategy and Next Steps Public Works Transportation Engineer David Reinhard provided the staff presentation. Oregon Transporta- tion Commissioner Randy Pap~, State Senator Lee Beyer, Bob Pirrie of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and Public Works Director Kurt Corey were also present for the item. Mr. Reinhard referred to the agenda item summary and next steps as outlined in the summary, saying it reflected the short-range list of actions based on the council's discussion of July 25. He reviewed the three items on the list: 1. Communicate clearly to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) that the coun- cil does not intend to proceed with the requested land use actions and inclusion of the en- tire West Eugene Parkway (WEP) in TransPlan, as requested by ODOT in December 2000, and therefore the council accepts the outcome ora No-Build decision on the WEP. This would reaffirm the council's position and clarify the City's intentions regarding the original WEP proposal. 2. Partner with ODOT in supporting a short-term strategy to preserve and improve existing State highways in west Eugene, specifically: - Designation of expressway status for West 11th Avenue from Beltline Highway to west of Greenhill Road. - Improvements to West 11th Avenue consistent with expressway designation and the TransPlan project list. - Construction of Phase 3 Beltline improvements, West 11th to Royal avenues. - Development of a project for major improvements to the West 1 l th-Beltline intersection, for future construction (this would incorporate the concept of improving the function and appearance of this major intersection as a better "portal" to Eugene from the wesO. - Reprogramming of the current funding for Unit 1-A of the WEP toward one or more of these projects on West 11th Avenue and Beltline. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session ODOT has indicated its support for these steps (although it cannot guarantee that the WEP funds will be used for west Eugene project~9. The proposals are for the most part included in or consistent with TransPlan, although amendments to TransPlan might be necessary for cer- tain portions. 3. Work with metro and State partners (including Lane County, Lane Transit District, ODOT, Department of Land Conservation and Development, and other~9 to develop a comprehensive long-term strategy for west Eugene land use and transportation that would incorporate the following elements: - Improved street connectivity, both east-west and north-south, in the area bounded by Beltline, Highway 99, the railroad tracks, and West 11th Avenue. - Increased use of Transportation DemandManagement (TDM) and alternative modes of transportation to handle a greater share of west Eugene travel demand--including such components as employer-based TDM programs, enhanced car pool programs, Bus Rapid Transit, improved general transit service, park-and-ride facilities, and consideration of commuter rail between Eugene and western Lane County. - Development of a transportation link that would make use of the existing WEP right-of- way between Danebo Avenue on the west and Highway 99 on the east. These elements of an overall strategy could move forward as a complete package, or alterna- tively as separate components of a long-term plan for the area. Staff:would need to continue exploration of potential funding sources, such as Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant funding and federal Surface Transportation Program (STP)funds. Council di- rection is needed regarding the relative priority of this work within the broader context of a post-TransPlan adoption work plan that includes other high priority activities, such as nodal development studies and corridor studies in several locations in Eugene. Mr. Reinhard also noted the list of other ideas in the agenda item summary for which staff did not hear clear support. Mayor Torrey requested comment from Oregon Transportation Commissioner Randy Papd regarding the position of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) on the short-range list of actions. Commissioner Papd thanked the council and mayor for allowing him to speak. He said that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) had spent much time discussing various transportation options for west Eugene. He noted that commissioners John Russell and Gail Achterman had visited the area personally. Commissioner Papd said that it was the commission's conclusion that the short-range list of actions did not satisfy the traffic models used by the State. Commissioner Papd summarized the commission's position as outlined in a letter to Mayor Torrey from ODOT Director Bruce Warner, dated July 31,2001. Copies of the letter were distributed to the council. The letter outlined the commission's understanding of the WEP project status and asked the council to confirm its position and to allow the ODOT to file a no build solution for the project. If that occurred, there were certain ramifications, which Commissioner Papd reviewed: 1) the funding would be moved back to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding allocation process as of October 1,2001, so the MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session $17 million that had been discussed for construction of Phase lA would be redistributed on the basis of the priorities associated with that process; 2) the State would move to designate Highway 126 as an expressway to restrict development and access opportunities to a minimum to facilitate traffic flow; 3) the State would initiate Phase III of the Beltline project from Royal Avenue to West 11th Avenue; and 4) once Phase III was completed, ODOT would move onto other project areas in the state and would not be involved in funding road projects east of the Beltline, such as West 11th Avenue or West 7th Avenue. He clarified that did not completely preclude future State funding for those projects, but the City would have to fully design and engineer those projects before OTC would agree to consider funding. At that time, the OTC would consider those projects in terms of its own goals for the State highway system, one of which was connectivity throughout the system. Commissioner Pap6 invited questions. Mr. Kelly thanked Commissioner Pap6 for attending the meeting. He said he had thought the council's work session the previous week very positive, and credited Ms. Nathanson for her suggested approach to transportation improvements in the west Eugene area. He thanked staff for the agenda materials, saying the agenda did a good job of summarizing the council's direction the previous week. He said he would support the staff-suggested motion related to the next steps, with some amendments. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Commissioner Pap6's comments regarding the fact the State modeling did not support a roadway on the east portion of the parkway right-of-way, but said that did not preclude the local community from finding a local roadway solution at that location that could be locally funded. Such a roadway was contemplated in the staff-prepared motion. Mr. Kelly indicated interest in amending the last item in #3 of the list to refer to "Danebo or Beltline." Mr. Farr said if he were involved in State decision-making about where the redistributed funds were to go, he would not consider funding projects in Eugene. He said that development in the west Eugene area was occurring, and it was predicated on the construction of the parkway. If the council did not find a way to move forward, things would collapse quickly because of the pressure of that development. Mr. Farr noted the distribution of a motion prepared by Councilor Gary Pap6 related to the parkway and asked how the timing of a vote on the parkway would affect the OTC's thinking. Commissioner Pap6 thought if the OTC understood there would be a citywide vote, it could await the outcome of the vote. Ms. Nathanson expressed her understanding of the State's message to the council. She regretted that had to be the outcome of the process. She had hoped there would be a way to keep all or most of the State funding to help the City make improvements to Beltline and West 11th Avenue as an alternative to the parkway. She thought the transportation problems in that area were due to some extent to the fact it was where the State system joined the local street system. Ms. Nathanson reiterated that she thought it regrettable that the money could not be switched to other projects with local support. Regarding the other ideas identified by staff that did not appear to have clear support, Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the council discussed a great many issues, and some did not receive as much "air time" as others. She said that, in addition to north-south connectors, for example, she wanted to add to the list of short-range items an item regarding investigating other improvements to West 11th Avenue to achieve a safer and more attractive community thoroughfare. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Ms. Bettman supported the staff-prepared motion. She appreciated Ms. Nathanson's comments and suggested addition. She noted other omissions in the list she would like to see included. Regarding short- term funding strategies, she thought it possible the State funding could be reallocated to the City in the competitive funding process. If the council had the strength of unanimity, she thought it had a good chance of retaining the funding to support other projects in west Eugene that would address operational efficiencies. Ms. Bettman asked that the list of short-range ideas be expanded by examination of the land use issues that came up at the charette, the potential of an overlay zone, and the first two items under the list of other ideas: 1) consideration of Royal Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard as more major east-west throughways in lieu of the WEP, and 2) investigation of possible improvements to West 11th Avenue between Beltline and Garfield Street, either as a ~main street" or as a %oulevard" with parallel access roads for adjacent property. Ms. Bettman suggested the first item in #3 on the list be amended by replacing ~the railroad tracks" with ~Roosevelt Boulevard" as the northern boundary of the area described for improved connectivity. Mr. Gary Pap~ thanked the councilors who participated in the charette as well as ODOT and Commissioner Pap~ for coming to the meeting. He said that the council worked hard over the last six months to find a solution to a problem that exists now, not just in the future. Mr. Gary Pap~ said the council needed a strategy to address that problem now. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a resolution to place the route of the WEP as required by the Eugene City Charter in an alignment as designated in the supplemental ElS and to schedule a special City Council meeting as soon as possible to consider the resolution for a measure for the next available ballot. Mr. Kelly determined that there were no other items on the November ballot, so the election would be a City-only election, at a cost of $70,000 to $90,000. Mr. Kelly asked if the motion was specific to the measure offered the voters in 1986. Mr. Gary Pap~ said his motion was designed to ask the community if it wanted the parkway or not. Mr. Kelly said that there were many things the community wanted, but the question was, how would it be paid for? He said he would support the motion if a source of funding was attached. He noted the lack of mention in the letter from the OTC about the federal requirement that the entire parkway project be included in TransPlan, which must be fiscally constrained, and that could lead to the elimination of other projects in the plan. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend that the ballot measure would include the necessary amount of bond funding to complete the parkway. Ms. Nathanson indicated opposition to the amendment, saying that it was not right for Eugene citizens to pay for 100 percent of the costs of such a facility, which served nonresidents as well. Mr. Rayor said that the public needed to understand that the project was an $80 million project, and that if the community said yes, it would need to find $70 million that would be taken from other projects. He said that all the road facilities on the project list were failing simultaneously, but not all projects could be built. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mr. Rayor said there was both a cost problem and an environmental problem with the parkway. He said the voters needed to understand there was a sensitive wildlife area that would be crossed by the parkway. Ms. Taylor indicated opposition to the amendment and motion. She did not support a parkway through the wetlands. She commended the staff summary and liked the staff-prepared motion as a starting point for discussion, which she would support if she had the chance. Ms. Taylor said she would not support putting something on the ballot that she thought was the wrong thing to do. Mr. Meisner did not support the motion or amendment as proposed. He emphasized that he was not interested in a %eauty contest vote." He said that the voters would expected a parkway if they voted to support one, and ODOT had removed its financial support for the parkway from its budget in past years. He wanted the costs and consequences associated with the parkway included in any measure offered the voters. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the City did not have the sole authority to build the parkway, and there was no guarantee the route would be approved by the agencies regulating the wetlands. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comment about a beauty contest vote, Mr. Farr concurred, and added he expected the manager would prepare a ballot measure that explained what was really going on to the voters. Additionally, there would be a broad community discussion about the merits of the parkway, and a lot of information would be put forth by the various factions supporting and opposing the parkway. Mr. Farr did not support the proposed amendment to the motion because he agreed that the parkway was not a local funding issue. He indicated support for the main motion. Mr. Gary Pap~ said that there were other ways to fund the parkway outside of a bond measure. He offered the motion because he was concerned that if the City walked away from the parkway, it would be walking away from State funding for some time, and there were many other projects competing for those funds. Ms. Bettman said that if the voters wanted the parkway enough, they would pay for it using local money. She did not support the main motion because it eliminated any opportunity for the City to recapture the STIP funding for projects for which there was an immediate, identified need. She did not think the parkway would be supported if voters knew they would have to give up other projects or pay for it. Responding to Mr. Farr's statement that the measure would provoke a broad community discussion, Ms. Bettman believed the discussion would be dominated by those who could afford to dominate it and who stood the most to gain financially from the parkway. She did not think there would be a balanced community discussion about the issues it took the council years to identify and research. Ms. Bettman thought that the traffic reduction or gain in travel time from the parkway would be so minimal as to not be worth its price tag. She said that currently, 91.2 percent of the eastbound traffic on West 11th Avenue had a destination in Eugene or Springfield, and if those people were bypassing the community they would not be stopping or spending money in Eugene, and that was not a viable economic development strategy. With the concurrence of his second, Mr. Kelly withdrew his amendment, saying the points offered by other councilors were well-taken. He opposed the motion on the floor, agreeing such a vote would raise voter expectations that the parkway would actually be built, which would be setting up false expectations. He said that the council should take a leadership role and be honest with the voters by indicating what projects in TransPlan would be eliminated in the parkway was funded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mr. Farr determined that the State had already spent right-of-way dollars to acquire property, and asked what would happen to that if the parkway was not built. Commissioner Pap~ indicated the right-of-way would be liquidated. That funding would go back to the federal government, the initial source of funding. Mr. Pirrie said that $6.5 million of the total $10.6 million that had been expended to-date had been spent for acquisition of right-of-way. Mr. Meisner believed that the property owners who sold the State the land would want it back, and there would be no shortage of buyers. He wanted clarity on what the manager would return with in the form of a resolution. If it included a discussion of consequences, the project list, and the uncertainty of funding, he would support that. In response to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Ms. Nathanson said that if a person was traveling to a destination in Eugene or Springfield, they were still traveling to Eugene or Springfield, no matter what their route, and that decision would not be affected by the existence of the parkway. Ms. Nathanson questioned if redevelopment of the newly available property freed by the lack of parkway construction would add to the transportation congestion problem in west Eugene. Ms. Nathanson said that several councilors had suggested that the project could only be funded by deleting projects from TransPlan or though a local bond measure. She said that was not the case and it was not the way it should be posed to the voters. There were other sources of funding, and other funding over time that would be available. She cited the funding from the new State transportation bill, and the potential of a special funding district that involved a larger region with the cooperation of the Board of County Commis- sioners. Ms. Nathanson said it was not fair to characterize the parkway's funding in such a manner. Commissioner Pap~ noted that often, projects were funded through federal earmarks. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute the motion on the floor with the staff-prepared motion. Ms. Taylor thought the staff-prepared motion captured the opinions of a majority of the council and she supported it. Mr. Farr thought the strategy reflected in the staff-prepared motion was well laid-out and it should be supported if the parkway did not go forward. However, Mr. Farr said, there were people in the community who thought the council had done wrong by killing the parkway without a vote. Those citizens might not have all the information about the merits and drawbacks of the parkway now, but they would at the end of a campaign. Mr. Farr was not convinced the parkway would have voter support, but at least at the end of the campaign the public would be informed and it would not be second-guessing the actions of the council. Mayor Torrey indicated opposition at this time to the substitute motion. He said that the council should put the measure to the voters and let them speak. He recalled a councilor's comment to the effect that the vote on the parkway was a %napshot in time"; he pointed out that councilor was not prepared to take a similar approach to a land use decision made several years ago, and advocated for consistency. Mayor Torrey wanted to educate the citizens regarding the parkway and its implications. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mayor Torrey did not believe that ODOT would fund anything other than the projects Commissioner Pap~ mentioned. The agency did not believe ~half a WEP" worked. Mr. Meisner expressed frustration with the council's process as exemplified by what he termed the %tacking of motions," saying that it did not allow the council an opportunity to complete discussion. In regard to the substitute motion, Commissioner Pap~ said he hoped he had been clear in his message to the council about what OTC was willing to do in regard to west Eugene and what it was not willing to do. If the parkway project did not go forward, ODOT would not be involved in funding transportation projects east of Beltline unless they were fully designed and had community support. Ms. Bettman reiterated that by waiting until November, the City would have lost its ability to compete for the STIP funds. She wanted to stay the course of looking at a combined strategy. Mr. Meisner determined from City Attorney Jerome Lidz that successful passage of the motion did not preclude Mr. Pap~ from placing his motion on the floor again. Mr. Reinhard determined from the maker and second of the substitute motion that the motion included the changes offered by Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting yes. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the level of ODOT participation in the long-term strategy referred to in item 3 of the list of short-term actions, Commissioner Pap~ clarified that his comments were specifically to the fact ODOT would not be involved in funding for project design and engineering. Mr. Kelly referred to the right-of-way liquidation, and asked if the liquidation could be slowed to give the local jurisdictions time to assemble the money to purchase it from the federal government. Mr. Pirrie said that it was possible, but he was not prepared to speak to the right-of-way liquidation at this point. Mr. Gary Pap~ briefly left the room. Mr. Farr thought the council owed the community the discussion preceding the vote, or the %ad taste" that was left in many people's mouths from the council's December 2000 decision would continue to exist for a long time. Ms. Bettman asked Commissioner Pap~ if he was representing the official position of the OTC. Commis- sioner Pap~ indicated he was representing the commission, which had discussed the issue at the last month's meeting, and which had decided at that point what action to take, culminating in the letter from Mr. Warner. He confirmed that the City had just received the letter. Mr. Gary Pap~ returned to the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion on the condition that the council would be considering a comprehensive ballot measure. He wanted the costs and consequences of the parkway brought back to the council as part of the ballot measure explanation, and asked if that was inherent in the motion. Mr. Gary Pap6 said yes. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Gary Pap6 if it was the intent of the motion that the ballot measure on the November ballot would include an explanation of the parkway's financial consequences and other project impacts. Mr. Pap6 said yes, if impacts to other projects were the consequences of the construction of the parkway. He was not sure, however, that all the financial consequences could be fully explained. Mr. Pap6 wanted information on the issues freely dispersed throughout the community. Mr. Johnson said the discussion of the financial implications would be included in the City Charter-required explanation for a limited access highway published in the newspaper; the ballot measure and explanation were too limited to explain all the impacts. Mr. Kelly asked if it was Mr. Gary Pap6's intent that the ballot measure would explain the impacts, or at least summarize them. Mr. Pap6 said he was unsure there was room for all Mr. Kelly wanted to see included, but he wanted the voting public to be informed on the issue before it voted. Mr. Kelly said he could not support the motion because he thought there was room to summarize possible impacts in the measure. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the council approved the ballot title and explanation. Mr. Kelly said that because there would be little time for "massaging and improving" the measure at the special meeting at which it was discussed, he could not support the motion. Speaking to remarks earlier made by Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly pointed out that TransPlan was financially constrained by law and the community must show expected revenues over the planning period. He did not think it was possible to list as expected revenues the hope the federal Congressional delegation would succeed in earmarking the needed funding. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting no; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap6, and Mr. Farr voting yes; Mayor Torrey voted in support of the motion and the final vote was 5:4 in favor of the motion. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to reaffirm and clarify the council posi- tion on the original West Eugene Parkway project; direct staff to work with ODOT and other partners on immediate priorities for West Eugene; and to direct staff to re- mm within six months with a recommended work program for a longer-term west Eugene strategy. Mr. Kelly determined from Ms. Taylor that the motion continued to include the changes offered by Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman, and himself. Mr. Farr opposed the motion as preempting the motion just passed. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Pap6, to amend the motion by deleting all text to the first semi-colon, so the motion would read: Direct staff to work with ODOT and other partners on immediate priorities for west Eugene and direct staff to return within MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session six months with a recommended work program for a longer term west Eugene strat- egy. Ms. Bettman said there was no guarantee that the council would adopt a resolution referring the issue to the voters, or that a ballot measure would pass. She supported the motion as initially stated so the council could continue to work to retain the State funding for the other projects it had identified as needed. She asked if the staff could identify listed projects that qualify for the Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment (DLCD) Land Use and Transportation Study so when staff returned with the list in six months the council would have initiated the process to secure DLCD funding. Mr. Fart thought the amended motion left room for ODOT and City staff to begin working together. He opposed the main motion. Mr. Gary Papd asked Commissioner Papd or ODOT staff to confirm the potential a no-build option would result in the City receiving State funding that would have otherwise been committed to the parkway. Commissioner Papd thought the chances were very slim the $17 million would be redirected to local projects given the demand that existed in the remainder of the state and the time it would take to get engineering and design accomplished. Mr. Gary Papd asked Mr. Reinhard if any engineering or design had been done for items 2 and 3 on the list of short-term actions. Mr. Reinhard said some design work had been done for the Beltline improvements and improvements to West 11th Avenue. Mr. Rayor determined from Commissioner Papd that the funding intended for the parkway was intended to support State highway projects, and could not be applied to the local street system; that funding came from another State fund. Mr. Rayor thought the potential of the funding being allocated to Eugene less than slim in that case. Commissioner Papd did not like the word "impossible," but concurred with "very slim." The funds would be returned to the STIP and reallocated using a competitive process. There was considerable demand for the funds. He concurred the parkway funding was for improvements affecting the State highway system. Mr. Reinhard clarified that the projects in Item 2 were eligible for State funding. Ms. Nathanson perceived problems with a vote on the main motion. She wanted to have some work in place, but she did not want to supplant the motion that just passed. She wanted the work that occurred as a result of successful passage of the amendment to happen on a parallel track with the work that resulted from the passage of Mr. Papd's motion. She suggested adding to the motion the phrase "and to complete specific elements as appropriate, dependent on the outcome of the council's special meeting and the outcome of an election if held.' Ms. Bettman clarified that the projects that would be forwarded to the State for funding in October were all on the State highway system. She said that most projects were not in final design when they were proposed for STIP funding. Mr. Reinhard concurred. Mr. Meisner preferred to table the first clause of the main motion until the special council meeting at which the council would consider the resolution. Mayor Torrey supported the amendment because he wanted to demonstrate that the council was willing to work with the State on the other issues involved in the list of short-term items. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session Mr. Reinhard concurred with a statement by Mr. Gary Papd that the City could both retain the parkway funding if the voters supported the parkway and continue to seek other State funding for the other improvements contemplated by the council. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Papd, and Mr. Farr voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amendment to the motion, and the amendment to the motion passed, 5:4. The vote on the main motion was 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Meisner left the meeting. C.Items from the Council, Mayor, and City Council Mr. Kelly solicited support for an expenditure of $1,250 to underwrite his travel to the Sister City of Kakegawa with the sister city delegation. There was no objection. Mayor Torrey encouraged the councilors to participate in such delegations. Mr. Farr requested information from staff about the City's method of evaluating the costs of trees removed from the right-of-way and the prices charged to citizens for trees. Ms. Taylor requested information on what was being done to alleviate traffic problems in the Spring Boulevard, Barber Street, and 43rd Avenue areas. Traffic from new developments was going down neighborhood streets instead of out to 30th Avenue. Mr. Johnson indicated staff would follow-up. Ms. Bettman asked if there was something the council could do to ensure that staff identified on the council packets were more available early on Mondays to answer questions about the agenda materials provided to the council the previous week. Mr. Johnson noted a conflict Monday mornings created by the council briefing and indicated he would follow-up. Mr. Johnson distributed copies of a letter from Alan Yordy of PeaceHealth. Mr. Johnson indicated he would expand the special meeting agenda to include an item on south hills fire danger. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the special meeting not be postponed for two weeks given the seriousness of the subject involved. She suggested that if there was something that property owners could do in the meantime, the City let them know by issuing advisory information. Mr. Johnson indicated it was staff's hope to raise public awareness about fire danger. Mr. Rayor questioned whether the City could put an insert in Eugene Water & Electric Board bills regarding fire safety measures such as vegetation breaks, etc. Mr. Johnson indicated that staff would tell the council what it had done in the way of public education and other proposals for addressing fire danger. Ms. Bettman suggested the potential of extending the August 8 work session to include a work session on fire danger. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session