Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/27/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon November 27, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Torrey reported that the City had received an appeal of the ballot title for the referral of the tobacco ordinance, and the council would hold a public hearing on the issue on November 29 following the 7:30 Joint Elected Officials public hearing at Harris Hall. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Work Session: Solid Waste and Recycling Mayor Torrey noted that Mr. Pap~ had recused himself for the item because of a conflict of interest. Nancy Young of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. She said that the council had discussed the issue of a system redesign for the solid waste and recycling system several times over the last ten years, and she believed the work session was timely given the council's concern over the upcoming residential rate increases. Ms. Young said that there were three primary goals for the comprehensive system redesign: 1) contain residential rates and provide long-term rate stability; 2) increase recycling recovery and waste prevention; and 3) standardize services and performance standards for all licensees. She suggested that another benefit of the redesign could be reduced truck traffic on neighborhood streets and fewer days during the week when cans were in the street. Ms. Young noted a correction to the meeting packet, saying that while Portland and Salem both have territory systems, neither participated in a competitive bid process; instead, territories were negotiated with existing haulers. She anticipated opposition to a competitive bid system from the haulers should the council decide to take that approach, which could delay implementation for five years. Ms. Young requested direction from the council on two issues related to the proposed system redesign: 1) should the City negotiate with current haulers or wait five years and conduct a competitive bidding for franchise territories, noting that up to this point haulers had been locally MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 1 Work Session owned and an open process would allow outside vendors to compete for a market share; and 2) should the City change its current policy, which separates residential and commercial services for the purpose of rate calculation. Ms. Young added that the latter issue was key to rate containment. Ms. Young noted there had been previous opposition to territories by both haulers and customers. Customers objected to the loss of choice. Although the City has no territories, the number of haulers has declined over time, while rates continue to rise. Ms. Young referred the council to a map showing residential service areas in Eugene. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. Ms. Young said that the City had retained the services of consultant Scott Hobson, who was present to answer questions about franchising and system redesign issues. Ms. Nathanson thanked Ms. Young for the map she had provided. She referred to Ms. Young's statement that customers might oppose a territorial plan because it could reduce choice. She asked if citizens were more concerned about choice or cost. She wanted to reduce duplication of services on the same street and said she had never liked the overlapping territories as they seemed inefficient and more costly. Ms. Nathanson said she had requested information on the number of households with a choice of two or more haulers to help her determine where a choice was available. She said that it appeared that 85 percent of residences were using the same provider. Ms. Nathanson recollected that previous councils had expressed interest in pursuing changes to the system but many factors, such as the need for the City staff to address ballot measures and other work program items, had worked against their resolution. Ms. Nathanson said she supported local businesses and wanted to support them whenever possible. She indicated she had additional questions about implementing a system that would support a reasonable return on investment. Mr. Fart asked if staff believed that the system was broken. Ms. Young said yes. She said that the rates are high because of the City's method of calculating rates. The City has separated residential and commercial rates and there is no cross-subsidy as there was in many communities, which served to keep rates Iow. Mr. Hobson added that typically, in a community that franchised both residential and commercial service, commercial rates subsidized the residential service. He cited Springfield and Corvallis as examples of communities taking that approach, and said that numerous California jurisdictions followed the practice. Mr. Fart asked if rates were high because of excessive profit-taking or because of the City's strict regulations on how the service was delivered. Mr. Hobson replied that Eugene's residential rates were higher than in other communities because it did not have the cross-subsidization he spoke of. Comparing Eugene's rate to other jurisdictions with a separation between rates, the City's rates were not out of line. Ms. Young said the profit levels in the residential collection area were below the City's targets. In the commercial service category, levels were quite a bit higher than the City's targets. Mr. Farr believed that the City enjoyed a high degree of service for the cost. He asked how the City's many waste management programs, such as recycling, added to the haulers' costs. Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Young said that they add to the cost, but those services were also offered in other communities with lower residential rates, such as Portland and Salem. In fact, Portland offered commingled recycling services, which had increased processing costs. Mr. Kelly said he wanted to address the proposed rate increases for 2001 at some point during the discussion. He had been very surprised that the rates were increasing to the level proposed. Mr. Kelly said he was supportive of moving toward both cross-subsidization and a territorial system. He asked staff for more information about how public input into the redesign process would take place, adding that even if the council was supportive of change in the system, a radical change should be proceeded by a great deal of public feedback. Ms. Young said that staff did not yet have a specific outreach plan because it wanted more direction about the program from the council. She cited a variety of approaches that could be used, mentioning focus groups and surveys as possibilities. Mr. Kelly suggested a public hearing early in the process as well as a more targeted outreach method, such as focus group. Mr. Kelly noted that only one of the City's haulers was a union hauler. He said that the issue of fair wages and benefits for employees was of concern to him, and wanted to know how those factors could be addressed in the redesign process. Mr. Hobson observed that contracts could be written to require the prevailing wage be paid regardless of the employer's status as a union shop. Mr. Rayor asked if the City could challenge the assumption that the haulers in existence in 1989 were the continuing haulers. City Manager Jim Johnson said yes, given that the council had authority to pass ordinances. Ms. Young explained that the number of haulers was limited by the ordinance to those in business in 1989 unless an individual could prove there was a good reason for an additional license to be granted. Over time, haulers had sold their businesses, which reduced the number of residential haulers to five. She said that the council could increase the number of haulers by changing the ordinance establishing that number. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the number could be increased only if there were additional firms wishing to provide services. Mr. Rayor asked what it would take to end the City's licensing agreements with the haulers and the ramifications of that action. Ms. Young said that because of the City's licensing agreement with the haulers, the City would have to give the haulers five years' notice to end the agreement. City Attorney Glenn Klein likened the licensing agreement to a contract and said the City could summarily breach the agreements but would have to pay damages. Mr. Klein said that if the City could not reach agreement with the licensees to end the agreements, the licensees would have a claim to file against the City in court. Mr. Meisner supported the staff recommendations as reflected in the meeting packet. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's question regarding the citizens' primary concern, Mr. Meisner believed that residents wanted to have a choice of container size and cost. Ms. Young confirmed that the choices available to consumers existed with all haulers. Mr. Meisner asked if new residential haulers had expressed an interest in entering the Eugene market. Ms. Young said that she had been contacted by one individual interested in obtaining a Eugene license about four years ago; since that time the individual concerned had left the business. Mr. Meisner said it appeared there had been one such contact in eleven years. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Young to discuss reasons for the reduction in the number of haulers over the past eleven years. Ms. Young said generally, haulers have sold their businesses and left the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 3 Work Session area. She believed the initial drop in the number of licenses coincided with the imposition of the City's more stringent regulations related to recycling. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein said that he would have to research to learn if the City could restrict a company from outside the community from hauling in Eugene. Mr. Johnson said that the agreements stipulated a five-year period to ensure that the business involved was able to become established over time. He thought a new firm entering the market would attempt to negotiate for a longer time period to amortize its costs over a longer time period. Ms. Nathanson said that she was interested in a fair and financially feasible system for both existing and new haulers. She noted that other cities frequently have solid waste and recycling services offered by municipalities like a utility. Ms. Nathanson did not think that the City was thinking of moving to public service delivery, but she considered garbage pick-up an essential service like a utility. She asked how the City could design a system in a way that assured that responsible private sector providers exist in a predictable environment. Mr. Johnson said that there may be as many ways of providing the service as there are communities, and it was each community's elected officials' responsibility to determine the most appropriate way to deliver the service in that community. Ms. Bettman had some general questions, such as what were the advantages of having the service delivered privately. She suggested public provision of such a service was an option for Eugene. Ms. Bettman also wondered if a competitive bid process would work to the advantage of the larger haulers, resulting in a single bidder offering services. She said that the system the City ended up with may not be what it bargained for. Regarding the prepared motions included in the packet, Ms. Bettman said she supported the second motion but not the first. She suggested that a public hearing be part of the process, and that it be scheduled early in the process. Mr. Fart expressed concern about the council's discussion of ways to limit private sector activities. He said in a competitive environment, the competition tended to be more efficient than the City could proscribe. Mr. Fart said he had selected a smaller provider and wanted to have a choice of providers. He did not want his provider dictated by the City. Mr. Fart said that as far as bringing in new providers, the infrastructure needed was difficult and expensive to establish because of complex regulations. He did not think it made sense to divide a small market into smaller shares. Mr. Kelly suggested to Mr. Farr that the distinction between this service and others was that it provided an essential service. He said that the public input process should allow people to indicate their preference for a choice of providers at that cost as it compared to a franchised system at lower costs. Mr. Kelly said that he would like to try to support the local entities providing the service as opposed to having a large multi-national company coming to town. Regarding Ms. Bettman's opposition to the first motion, Mr. Kelly questioned the rationale as he did not think that it represented the final result. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Hobson suggested that one approach was for the City to establish a citywide rate, so a resident would pay the same rate regardless of where they lived and who provided the service. Each of the haulers would operate under a franchise MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 4 Work Session agreement with a contract amount for serving the territory to which they were assigned. Mr. Rayor suggested that would result in a bureaucracy none of the councilors contemplated. Mr. Rayor said that he was confused by the options described in the meeting packet and would have appreciated a matrix showing the attributes of each. Ms. Young reviewed the details of each of the options. Mr. Rayor said that it sounded as though once the City chose the franchise approach, haulers had no opportunity to grow. Mr. Hobson said that business growth would occur through annexation and the provision of additional services. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's assessment of the first motion. He said that his street was served by multiple companies traveling back and forth down a dead-end road to serve multiple customers. Efficiencies of cost system wide could be realized through another approach. Mr. Meisner said that while the City guaranteed a return on investment, it did not factor in return on capital investment, creating a disincentive in a sense. Mr. Meisner noted that when the council was referring to commercial use, in this case that included all multi-unit housing in the community. Mr. Meisner asked if progressivity applied to commercial hauling as well as residential hauling. Ms. Young said no. She added that the rates for commercial service had not changed in ten years. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding haulers' investments in capital equipment and the City's rate setting process, Mr. Hobson offered as an example the City's yard debris program. The program required the haulers to purchase new equipment, such as cads and vehicles, and in setting the rates for the service staff included the annual depreciation of that equipment. Mayor Torrey urged the council to involve the haulers in any changes it contemplated. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to begin working on a process to redesign the garbage hauling system, moving toward exclusive territories and competitive bidding, using public comment and other processes before returning to the council with a final proposal. Mr. Kelly supported the motion, saying it seemed to accurately summarize the sentiments expressed by councilors. Mr. Fart said he would not support the motion. He thought that the council was on a "slippery slope" in that competition was not always equal, as illustrated by Mr. Kelly's remarks about the union status of the largest employer, and the result of merely accepting competitive bids and establishing territories could be "bare bones" service to the community. The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Fart and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the policy to set rates by combining residential and commercial service expenses identified in a competitive procurement process and pay haulers a contracted amount. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner asked staff to estimate the impact of the motion on the residential and commercial rates. Ms. Young believed that theoretically, the current rates could be maintained without an increase. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Young to discuss whether it would be possible to subsidize the residential rates with the commercial service without the layer of bureaucracy represented by the competitive procurement process. Ms. Young said she did not believe so, because of the disproportionate distribution of commercial and residential accounts. Mr. Johnson determined from Ms. Bettman that she would be interested in examination of a variety of ways of cross-subsidization. He suggested that the motion be rephrased to allow that to happen. Ms. Bettman asked why some of the haulers choose not to serve commercial users. Ms. Young responded that she did not know. She suggested that part of the answer could be attributed to equipment owned by the haulers and the ways the routes were scheduled. If a hauler served residential accounts in an area that did not include much commercial businesses, he or she would be unlikely to leave that service area to serve commercial uses. She indicated that staff would ask the haulers for input. Mr. Kelly asked if staff would move forward with cross-subsidization if the motion passed, or if it would address the issue in the same process as the franchise process. Ms. Young said yes to both questions. She confirmed that would not moderate the rate increase in the near term. Mr. Kelly asked if staff was suggesting that rates would be maintained after the establishment of a franchise system. Mr. Hobson said that the haulers would lose some costs from the change, such as billing costs. He suggested a single hauler could do the billing under contract with the other haulers. Mr. Fart believed the City would be adding bureaucracy to the system and that would add costs to the service and therefore to the consumers. In response to Mr. Johnson's comment, Ms. Nathanson withdrew the motion on the floor. Mr. Kelly withdrew his second. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a report, with implementation options, describing how to change to a rate system where residential and commercial expenses are combined to determine rates, using public comments and other processes before returning to the council with a firm proposal. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to request the City Manager to limit the January 1, 2001, residential rate increases to no more than 13 percent, or to delay any increases other than the yard debris fee, for at least one year. Mr. Kelly explained the rationale behind the motion, saying because of the ongoing system redesign design, he wanted to postpone the proposed January 2001 rate increase. One of the main components in the rates increase was the anticipation that container sizes would be MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 6 Work Session reduced because of the yard debris service; he considered that an "end run" around the council's decision to limit the yard debris initial rate to $3.20 per month. Backing that factor out would reduce the increase to 13 percent. Mr. Johnson noted that Chapter 3 of the City Code gave authority to the City Manager to establish rates. He said he would give the council's request serious consideration and provide it with his reasoning if he decided against the lower increase. The motion passed unanimously, 5:1; Mr. Fart voting no. Mr. Pap~ joined the council for the remaining agenda items. B. Work Session: Discussion of an Ordinance Concerning Parking Requirements and Amending Sections 9.015, 9.585, and 9.586 of the Eugene Code, 1971 The council was joined by Senior Planner Allen Lowe for the item. Mr. Lowe invited questions about the materials in the meeting packet. Mr. Rayor said that when he met with the City Manager he had expressed concern that the City not lose money on the University of Oregon's Autzen Stadium Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. He questioned the rationale for the mitigation account. Referring to page 15 of the concept outline for the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), Mr. Rayor wanted to add to Section 1.2 that lots 8 or 9 would not be counted under subsection (1) and that the University would complete work on the berm and assume maintenance under the City's supervision. He wanted to call out the number of bicycle parking spaces, 1,145 permanent and temporary spaces, in Section 1.5. Mr. Rayor said that the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was specific as to the number of automobile parking spaces within 1,000 feet of the stadium but was not specific to the bicycle parking spaces. Section 1.6 in the concept outline should refer to transit options 2, 3, or 4 instead of just 2 and 3. Mr. Rayor said he had wanted to add the concept of "University expense" to Section 6.0. He wanted to add "costs for City staff shall be reimbursed by the University" to Section 6.0. In Section 4.1, Mr. Rayor wanted to require a maximum bicycle parking fee of $1 for bicycle parking. He expressed confusion about the phrase "above or below in Section 3" in sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6, saying he could not follow the cross reference. He suggested a new Section 6.11 that indicated all costs for City staff required for sections 2 and 3 would be reimbursed by the University. Mr. Rayor said that he wanted the project to happen, and he wanted the City to start behaving like a budget- restricted agency. He said that he was not trying to pick the University's pocket, but it was getting a lot of services from the City. Ms. Bettman wanted to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the IGA to take City control of City property. The new IGA should supercede the former IGA. She wanted to phase out use of lots 8 and 9 by 2004 or 2005. She wanted all parking off parkland. She wanted to reestablish City control of Leo Harris Parkway and use the parking revenues from game attendees to offset the loss of parking revenues WISTEC (Willamette Science and Technology Center) could experience. Ms. Bettman believed that the proposed transit station should be on University of Oregon property. She asked if other entities had offered property to the University of Oregon for that use, such as the nearby Masonic Lodge. She thought there was a broad range of options the University could consider if its objective MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 7 Work Session was not to spend as little money as possible to accommodate the increase in parking that would occur from the expansion of the stadium. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the relationship of Ballot Measure 7 to the IGA, Mr. Johnson said that the University could not make a claim under that measure because the measure was specific to private real property, not public real property. Ms. Bettman said the TDM mitigation account seemed superfluous in that the City was requiring the University of Oregon to cover any costs associated with the program. She was concerned that the minor elements of the TDM plan were not addressed in the section regarding the initial TDM plan requirements, saying that they had a tendency to add up and were not reimbursed. Mr. Kelly said he saw good progress being made, citing several changes to the IGA he preferred. He wanted more information about the University of Oregon's response to the changes. Mr. Johnson said that the University accepted the concept outline. Mr. Kelly requested that response in writing. Mr. Kelly requested feedback from the upcoming series of meetings between the East Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee, the University, and the City after they occurred. Responding to a request from Mr. Kelly for an update on the WISTEC situation, Mr. Johnson said that his discussions with WISTEC did not go well. His suggestions for mitigating the impact of the loss of City- owned parking lot were not acceptable to WISTEC. The organization had many objections. For example, the organization did not think the grass parking area was as desirable because the location of the transit stations required automobiles to be held in the area while the buses left to ensure maximum transit usage. Mr. Johnson confirmed that he had shared the council's intent to eliminate the grass parking with WISTEC. WISTEC recognized that the master plan indicated that parking would be eliminated. He had discussed the possibility of expanding the parking available in the West Alton Baker Park asphalt parking lot on game days or major event days and issuing a Request for Proposals to see if a nonprofit wanted to participate, but WISTEC probably would not submit a proposal under that option because of philosophical disagreements with the approach and concern other nonprofits could out-compete them in the response. Mr. Johnson concluded that WISTEC wanted to retain the asphalt parking lot for parking rather than as a transit station, and wanted to continue to collect and retain the parking revenue. Mr. Kelly said that he was disappointed by Mr. Johnson's report and believed that the "ball was in WISTEC's court" regarding the range of possibilities the organization was prepared to live with. Mr. Johnson said that most of the discussion he had with WISTEC was how to make Option 1 work; WISTEC believed the option would put it out of business. Mr. Kelly said if there was any additional information staff could share on options 2, 3, and 4, he would appreciate it. Ms. Nathanson said if Option 1 would put WISTEC out of business now, she questioned how WISTEC could survive financially when the grassed parking area was eliminated. She was concerned about WISTEC's financial stability, but questioned whether City actions would assure long-term financial stability under that circumstance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Nathanson regarding WISTEC's philosophical opposition to the Request for Proposals approach Mr. Johnson suggested for West Alton Baker Park, Mr. Johnson said that historically the entire park had been free for parking on game days. WISTEC believed if the parking had been free it should remain free. He indicated he would write a memorandum describing what was discussed and WISTEC could make it own response to the council. Ms. Nathanson believed that Autzen Stadium was somewhat small for a stadium and asked how it compared in size to stadiums in other cities in terms of its location and parking availability. Mr. Johnson said that stadiums varied as to size and location. Many were in downtown locations with much smaller footprints and little parking, while others were in suburban location with lots of parking. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lowe indicated he would investigate whether restriping would add to efficiencies in parking. Regarding Ms. Bettman's suggestion that the University's position was based on an attempt to minimize its expenditures, Ms. Nathanson said that she believed the University was primarily concerned about safety and congestion given the large number of people who traveled to the stadium for games and special events. Mr. Meisner commended the University for attempting to develop a TDM solution and reduce the number of cars coming to the stadium. He also appreciated the efforts the City Manager made in attempting to resolve the issues involved with WISTEC. He said in general, the concept outline was a good one and he appreciated staf?s efforts to put "teeth" in the TDM program, in particular noting the addition of Section 7.4, which indicated that the University's failure to comply with the conditions of the IGA could result in revocation of the TDM plan and force the University to comply with the code. Regarding the grassed area used for parking, Mr. Meisner questioned whether it was actually allowed. He thought it occurred contrary to the terms of the lease. He also did not think the lease permitted sale of the use of City-owned parking without the City's permission. At the same time, he wanted to protect WISTEC, which was not the same as holding it harmless or granting it everything it wanted. Mr. Meisner endorsed the direction the City was taking and said that preliminarily, Option 1 seemed most reasonable if the City wanted TDM to work for the project. Mr. Pap~ commended the University and staff for the work that had been done on the IGA. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the University was not merely focused on reducing expenses. He said that after consideration, it appeared that Option 1 seemed to be the option that worked best for all involved. Mr. Johnson clarified that the TDM report indicated that all the options worked, but some worked better than others. He noted that Andy Vobora of Lane Transit District (LTD) indicated a preference for Option 1. He thought if it worked best for LTD, it was more likely that the transit service would be used. Mr. Pap~ believed that the issue of WISTEC should be considered separately from the parking issue. He said that the organization could be located somewhere else and had enjoyed a revenue windfall by taking advantage of City-owned property at its current location. Mr. Fart commended Mr. Johnson's work to satisfy both the needs of the City and University. He believed that WISTEC should be protected and had the same chance of remaining viable as it had prior to the expansion. He said he had not seen any spreadsheets showing actual revenues received by WISTEC as MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 9 Work Session compared to projected revenues, and was interested in having that information. Mr. Fart said he cared a great deal for WISTEC and wanted to see the differences in positions resolved. Mayor Torrey said WISTEC needed to bring its bottom line proposal to the table. The council would make a decision on December 11, and would accept or reject a proposal at that time. He agreed that the council needed to look at the merits of the TDM proposal independent of the WISTEC issue. He said that the City needed to act in the best interests of the community regardless of WISTEC. He said that the stadium was also extremely important to the community. Mr. Rayor said that he wanted the University to be responsible for making the transit station improvements and did not want it to try to expand the lot. Referring to options 1 and 2, Mr. Rayor perceived that blocking off the grassed parking area as a major benefit from those options. He was uncomfortable that the City leased the building to a private nonprofit that made money off parking on a natural resource area and took over the public street in front of the building for a period of time. He agreed with the mayor about the need for WISTEC to bring the City a bottom line proposal. Mr. Rayor thought the University's proposal was acceptable. Mr. Rayor said that the University was responsible for impacts to the park from the automobile parking and he did not want any City costs. He said the University should cover the costs of City staff monitoring the park. Ms. Bettman said the transit station location analysis was based on what worked for the transit station and the University, and did not take into account other components, such as the impact on the park or other City- owned property. She wanted to see the analysis expanded to take those factors into account. Ms. Bettman spoke on behalf of the park, saying the City was fortunate to have a beautiful natural park on riverfront property. She did not want to see the park turned into an appendage of the University of Oregon or natural areas precluded from restoration because they were being used for parking and access to football games. Ms. Bettman said the City needed to take an active stance to restore the park to its natural state. The park was a community asset as much as the University of Oregon, and the council represented the City's interest. Ms. Bettman reiterated that she wanted to consider using the parking revenue from Leo Harris Parkway to offset WISTEC's losses from the loss of the grassed parking area. She wanted to know more from the University about its future facility needs and whether a parking garage was contemplated at some point in the future. She thought a parking structure could replace the displaced parking from the transit site, surrounding neighborhoods, and the areas where parking should be phased out, such as the park. Ms. Bettman said that the argument the structure would only be used six times yearly was short-sighted, as she thought a parking structure could accommodate students living north of the river or serve as a park and ride for University and Sacred Heart employees. Mr. Kelly referred to page 13 and the latest proposal for temporary bicycle parking, and said he continued to be troubled by the concept of temporary parking that was in place the entire season would be located in the middle of the park. He was concerned the result would be an eyesore. Mr. Lowe said that staff shared the concern, which led to the recommendation. Because there was no design proposal for what that would look like, it was staf?s intent to allow the University to propose something. If the University's proposal was not aesthetically appropriate, the City would require it to take the parking down after each game. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the addition of Section 7.4, saying that it provided teeth to the agreement. Mr. Kelly anticipated council action on December 11 as long as the park-related issues were addressed. He wanted to know more about the outcome of the City's work with the citizen planning committee and University. Regarding the grassed parking, Mr. Kelly suggested that the University amend its financial offer of compensation to WISTEC by adding ramped-down compensation for the loss of that parking as a good will gesture. Regarding the issue of pedestrian safety, Mr. Kelly suggested the City and University consider a combination of signalized intersections and pedestrian over crossings to address pedestrian/automobile conflicts. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the issue of parking on grass was not unique to this situation. It occurred at several City-owned facilities, such as at Alton Baker Park for the Art in Vineyard event. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the comment and said a work session might be appropriate. He noted that unlike the situation mentioned by Mr. Johnson, in this case the parking in question was not in an area designated for that purpose. C. Action: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to appoint Charles Rusch to position 3 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning on November 1, 2000, and ending on October 31, 2004. The motion passed, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reappoint Adell McMillan to position 3 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning on November 1, 2000, and ending on October 31, 2004. Mr. Papd raised the issue of geographic dispersion of City committees and asked that the Planning Commission recruitment process be restarted so that more candidates from the north and Bethel area of the community could be encouraged to apply. He thought it particularly important given that the northern portion of the community was its fastest growing area. Ms. Nathanson said that she was also not happy with the geographic representation on the commission and noted her own support for a downtown candidate because of the council's focus on downtown issues. However, she supported the motion as it represented the will of a majority of the council. Mr. Kelly agreed it would be good to see more geographic representation from north of the river and suggested it would be easier for the council to appoint a candidate from that area if there were more applicants. He added that he considered geography after he considered qualifications. He said the council should encourage qualified applicants to apply. Mr. Fart suggested that geography itself in the form of distance from downtown worked against getting better geographic representation. He did not believe the City had done an adequate job in recruiting people from west and north Eugene to the Planning Commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Fart noted his appreciation for the work of Ms. McMillan and had no problems with her performance on the commission. However, the issue of geographic representation had been a problem for him in the past and continued to be a problem. Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the motion to delay the appointment and reopen the application process for the Planning Commission. Mr. Rayor noted that in addition to the issue of geographic representation, he was also interested in placing professional practitioners on the commission, which had affected his thinking in casting his vote. He wondered if the council's support for Ms. McMillan was tenuous, or if it should reconsider the votes. Mr. Rayor determined from staff that there were no term limits for the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly said that if he believed the motion would produce a different result he would support it. He said that staff had worked to recruit candidates from those areas and he did not think anything would change. In addition, Mr. Kelly believed that the commission was critical and should be kept at full strength. With regard to Mr. Rayor's comments about placing practitioners on the Planning Commission, Mr. Kelly said he had a concern with appointing an active practitioner to the commission because of his fear that actual or perceived conflicts of interest would arise at every meeting. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly. Although she was not opposed to reopening the process, she would want to reopen it for all candidates, which might not result in Mr. Papa's desired result. She suggested that the City saw considerable more volunteerism in south Eugene because it was built on a grid pattern and absorbed a tremendous amount of pressure from the growth in other neighborhoods. Regarding the reappointment of Ms. McMillan, Ms. Bettman said she had objected to Ms. McMillan serving a third term because she thought there should be new membership on the commission. However, she acknowledged the level of council support for Ms. McMillan and said she would support the appointment. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion, noting his active solicitation of residents in the north and west areas of the community to no avail. He said that it was important the commission have members that were prepared to serve. He said that if the council wanted ward representation on the commission, it should change the ordinance. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting yes. The main motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reappoint Susan Thelen to position number 3 on the Eugene-Springfield Metro Partnership for a three-year term beginning on November 1, 2000 and ending on October 31, 2003. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reappoint Madronna Holden to position number 4, an advocacy slot, on the Toxics Board for a three-year term MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 12 Work Session beginning on November 1, 2000 and ending on October 31, 2003. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to appoint Brian Allen to position number 1, a business slot, on the Toxics Board for a three-year term beginning on November 1, 2000 and ending on October 31, 2003. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to appoint Andrea Ortiz to position number 7 on the Citizen Involvement Committee, the slot representing the Human Rights Commission for term concurrent with the term on the Human Rights Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to appoint Joni Dawning to position number 1 on the Citizen Involvement Committee, a slot representing neighborhood leaders on the Citizen Involvement Committee, for a term beginning on November 1, 2000 and ending on October 31, 2003. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to reappoint Walter Meyer to position number 2 on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, an at-large position from Eugene, for a three-year term beginning on February 1,2001 and ending on January 31, 2004. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to appoint Alexis Reed to fill the unexpired term of Ilisa Rooke Ley, position number 9 on the Human Rights Commission, the term ending on May 31, 2002. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 13 Work Session