Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/12/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall March 12, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman (Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bett- man participated via speakerphone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy related that Ms. Taylor was in Washington, DC, representing the City of Eugene at the National League of Cities (NLC) conference. Mayor Piercy reported that Marina Rikovinova, a citizen of Eugene’s Sister City of Irkutsk, Russia, had visited during the previous week in order to attend the E-Law Conference at the University of Oregon. She said Ms. Rikovinova received an award for her work to protect Lake Baikal from an oil pipeline. Ms. Rikovinova had spoken with representatives of the City and of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) regarding sustainability and how the City and its publicly owned utility could work with the Mayor of Irkutsk on some of these same issues. Mayor Piercy said she had helped to kick off the Climate Masters Program. She said Sarah Mazze was leading an effort to teach people how to assess their own carbon footprint, reduce it, and help others reduce theirs. She related that she had led a sustainability tour for state financial leaders. She thanked Connie Bennett, Glen Svendsen, Pat Farr, and Emily Proudfoot for helping with the tour. Mr. Clark thanked staff and especially Public Service Officer Michelle Mortensen, and Natural Resources Specialist Laurie Mullen, for taking the time to help him become educated about the problem people in Ward 5 were experiencing with the recent nutria population explosion in the Delta Ponds area. He said the people who lived in the Garden Isle Estates were experiencing an infestation of nutria. He appreciated staff’s work to address the problem. Ms. Solomon reported that she attended the Housing Policy Board (HPB) meeting. She said the HPB received its Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for affordable housing projects and was reviewing them. She stated that the HPB would make a recommendation to the City Council after the review. She noted that the HPB was also still moving forward on the manufactured housing park ordinance. Mr. Poling acknowledged a copy of the letter in council packets from Ada Lee indicating her unwillingness to sell her property. He asked if there would be a follow-up meeting in order to consider a change of plans MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 1 Work Session for the City Hall complex. City Manager Dennis Taylor replied that this would be one of the subjects to be discussed at a workshop in April, after the council break. Mr. Poling noted that although he had missed the meeting for elected officials at which Mel Pine from PeaceHealth made a presentation, he had been able to attend another meeting with Chamber of Commerce members at which the same information was presented. Mr. Poling congratulated the members of the Eugene Police Department who were promoted on March 7, which included Capt. Pete Kerns, Lt. Pete Aguilar, Lt. Tony Baker, Sgt. Mike Gilbert, Sgt. Carolyn Mason, and Jessica Shankle, who was promoted to Records Specialist A. Mr. Poling announced that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was starting its budget process and would hold its first public hearing on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), budget, and user rate at the Springfield City Hall on April 20 at 7:30 a.m. He said this would be brought before the City Council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners in May or June. He added that people were welcome to provide testimony during the public comment portion of the MWMC meeting scheduled for March 15. Mr. Zelenka arrived. Continuing, Mr. Poling stated that at the March 6 meeting of the Lane Transit District (LTD) EmX Steering Committee it was reported that the Franklin Corridor experienced a 67 percent increase in ridership over nd Route 11. He reported that there were over 5,000 boardings on the EmX on March 2 alone. He related that LTD had done some timing adjustments in order to eliminate some of the back-ups caused by the traffic signals, adding that the LTD Board expressed gratitude for the assistance Public Works Department employees provided. Mr. Poling also reported that he attended the Police Commission meeting on March 8. He said Police th Auditor Chris Beamud indicated that the target date for opening the new storefront office at 8 Avenue and Olive Street was between May 15 and June 1. Ms. Ortiz said she was also at the Police Commission meeting. She related that the commission had been updated on the five-year strategic plan. Ms. Ortiz extended kudos to the Willamette High School girls’ basketball team who recently won the state championship. Ms. Ortiz stated that she attended the Bethel School District enrollment project, which included a presenta- tion on the background of the housing there in order to address the coming increase in students. Mr. Poling added his congratulations to the North Eugene High School boys’ basketball team. Mr. Clark added his congratulations to Sheldon High School. Ms. Taylor reported that she perceived the main theme of the NLC conference to be sustainability and a focus on saving the environment. Mr. Zelenka related that he attended the City Club gathering the previous week and Bill Sizemore had been there. He stated that Mr. Sizemore had four items he was proposing for ballot measures: a measure that MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 2 Work Session would eliminate the requirement for a building permit for any improvements costing $35,000 or less, a measure that would disallow contributions to political candidates from entities the candidates were negotiating a contract with, a measure that would provide a property tax exemption for senior citizens, and a measure that would create an immersion program for foreign language students. He commented that the notion that building permits would not be needed was odd given that most regulations were for safety and health reasons. He said he did not support any of Mr. Sizemore’s potential ballot measures. City Manager Taylor acknowledged the hard work of the Eugene Airport for gaining direct flights to Los Angeles and Las Vegas. He averred that those flights were “huge” in terms of economic development for the community. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 5:41 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: Review of West Broadway Request for Qualifications Responses City Manager Taylor averred that revitalization of the downtown area was “really just putting together a string of successes” and making sure decisions were made thoughtfully and deliberately with the goal in mind of having a vibrant 24-hour downtown. He underscored that the task before the council at the present work session would be to select the team or teams that should move forward to negotiate the project details with the City, and not to determine what those details should be at this time. He reiterated that this was only the initial step in a multi-step process. He anticipated bringing back future decisions for council action. He asked Susan Muir, Executive Director of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to provide the context for the discussion. Ms. Muir felt this discussion represented a milestone as the decision before the council was an important decision for the community. She stressed that PDD staff had tried to be objective in moving through the responses. She noted that PDD added three people to the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC): a tenant on Broadway, an individual representing the arts community, and a member of the 2000 Downtown Vision Committee. Denny Braud, Senior Development Analyst, stated that the West Broadway redevelopment area consisted of the two blocks along Broadway between Willamette and Charnelton Streets. He reviewed the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process and the RFQs that were received. He conveyed staff’s recommendation to select KWG Development Partners for the project. Ms. Muir said that in talking to developers through the RFQ process, she surmised that they recognized the city of Eugene was ready for this change. She related that in talking with similar cities across the country about this type of revitalization, staff heard that developing a downtown such as the one in Eugene was like a “20-year overnight success” as it would take a long time “to get there.” She underscored that PDD staff made the recommendation to select KWG Development Partners in order to move forward to the next step. Ms. Taylor asked how much revenue the City received from the Broadway Place commercial space. Mr. Braud indicated he could research the answer for her. Ms. Taylor remarked that this was significant as she thought most of that space was currently vacant. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor opined that part of the 24-hour activity of a revitalized downtown would be “destroyed by the threat of this project.” Her first choice for the proposal would have been Greg Bryant’s proposal, as he was a local person. Her second choice was the Beam Development proposal, excluding a second phase. She felt the private market could take care of the rest. She stressed that her first principle would be to not destroy what was already working and she listed several of the existing businesses in the area that were thriving. Ms. Bettman was excited by some of the components of the proposals. She expressed concern that the City had done an RFQ, which in her opinion meant the City should be evaluating the developers based on their qualifications with regard to this type of development. It seemed to her that the recommendation relied heavily on the components of the proposals, which she did not consider to be fair, given that the City had purportedly not asked for proposals. She felt the process had resulted in proposals from three very qualified developers. She was reluctant to limit the decision to one developer at this point. She was also opposed to consolidating that much of downtown under one owner. She said pursuing proposals from three developers would allow the City to maximize Beam Development’s experience with historical restoration, to maximize Midtown Development’s experience with housing, and to maximize KWG Development Partners’ experience with mixed-use projects. th Ms. Bettman asked what the net gain would be in housing units at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street with the KWG Development proposal. Mr. Braud replied that the proposal included 106 market rate condomin- ium ownership units. He said the net gain would be in the neighborhood of 300 housing units. Mr. Poling said in looking at what KWG had done elsewhere it seemed to him that the ERAC and staff had made the right recommendation. He averred that KWG Development was proposing exactly what the City wanted done downtown and they had the track record to support it. While he appreciated the interest shown by the other developers, he considered the KWG proposal to be the best. Mr. Clark observed that the downtown was not working at present. He felt the City was standing on the “cusp” of something that would work. He said he would support the staff and ERAC recommendation. He noted that he had some thoughts of working Beam Development into the project in some way, but he had ascertained from the City Manager that while some of the developers might be willing to work together, they did not want to do so. Mr. Braud reported that staff had engaged in detailed conversations about the possibility of moving forward with two developers. He said it was a combination of economics, as one would lose the economies of scale a larger project would provide and the developers would be forced to compete for tenants in two different projects. He also noted that staging construction would present logistical issues. Mr. Clark said the Beam Development proposal caused him some concern as it included a desire to do the development on a fee basis; he preferred, when entering into a public/private partnership, there be some means of shared risk. He stated that another concern for him was that was the potential increases in cost for the project the City faced with any kind of delay. Also, he said the Beam Development proposal limiting the Washburn Building to two floors ran counter to the development goal of significantly increasing density and height downtown. Mr. Zelenka thanked all of the developers for their responses. He considered them all to be well-thought out. He thought the “devil was in the details” of the proposals. He envisioned the downtown as first a neighborhood that had mixed uses, residential and commercial. He averred that housing was what would “make it all work.” While he did support the public/private investment in the downtown, he was a little MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 4 Work Session concerned that the City was “getting the cart before the horse” as it was an RFQ and not a Request for Proposals (RFP). He felt the evaluation had been done based on the one that had the best proposal instead of the one with the best qualifications. He liked the KWG proposal, although he had concerns regarding how it would be consistent with the sustainability goals of the City. He liked the Beam Development proposal for reuse of the Centre Court and Washburn Buildings, but he was not keen on their proposal for City ownership. However, he approved of Beam’s experience in constructing Leading in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) buildings. He had also liked the Midtown Developers proposal, though he felt it was more limited as their experience was a “little low on the commercial side.” He did not consider the Bryant proposal or the CenterCal Properties proposal because he did not think either had the right qualifications. Mr. Zelenka did not want to pursue one proposal at this juncture. He also did not believe enough discussion of the public investment had transpired. He did not think it was a time to “go fast.” He stressed that the investment could be tens of millions of dollars. He did not want to put the City in the position of having to say no to a proposal. Mr. Pryor said he was very impressed by the KWG Development Partners proposal, but he did want additional information. He suggested that the City gain more information from KWG and from Beam Development. He said he would be particularly interested in what Beam would do regarding housing. He liked what KWG had proposed in that regard. He also wanted to ask how the developers would integrate with the culture downtown. He acknowledged the movie theater proposal but he wanted to think beyond a movie theater. He was interested in understanding how the proposals would interact with existing downtown businesses as well. He stressed that although he wanted more information, he did not want the process to take another three months. Mayor Piercy said she was interested in how the City would advance its slogan ‘The World’s Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors’ with whichever developments it opted for. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Braud stated that initially KWG Development Partners talked of a concept that would remove the Washburn Building and reuse the Centre Court Building, but staff had conveyed the community’s desire to salvage the Washburn Building given that there was not a great stock of older buildings downtown. He said KWG indicated it was open to the idea of working around the building should the community wish to retain it. Mayor Piercy said given the lack of older buildings in the downtown, it would be good to see if developers could come up with concepts that included retention of one or both of those buildings. Regarding comments about not wanting to select one developer at this juncture, she felt that one developer would not ultimately own every piece of property in the area. Mr. Braud conveyed staff’s uncertainty on whether the City would gain much by moving forward into the second phase of development with two potential developers instead of one. He related that in the case of KWG, the housing units would be sold and the hotel that was planned would be sold, but the retail space, grocery, and cinema would be retained for long-term ownership. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Braud for the presentation and expressed appreciation for the five RFQ submittals. She found it hard to conceptualize undertaking the project with the Urban Renewal District, which was funded by taxing the community. She did not want to lose sight of the fiscal environment the State currently faced. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Ortiz stressed the importance of making the downtown welcoming to everybody. She averred that the Oakway Mall was often held up as a shining example of success, but the area’s low-income population was not represented in the people who shopped there. She declared that it was not the people who were downtown now that were the problem, it was the “bad behavior.” She felt the bad behavior would go away with an increase in the number of people and families that went downtown to shop, eat, and participate in activities. Ms. Bettman said she was nervous because the council was discussing the criteria on the basis of the proposal because the proposal was conceptual and the components therein could “go away.” She had seen “huge caveats” in the KWG Development Partners proposal on elements such as the housing piece. She averred that the City had KWG Development on board already as the developer had been awarded the RFP th for the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street site. She thought the City should maximize the strength that each developer brought to the table and utilize it so that the broadest range of community values could be included in the proposal. She felt that if the City should go ahead with one developer with a grand concept and the community resisted the concept, the City would face delays in the project and would not be in a position to backtrack. She added that she thought Midtown Development demonstrated a vision in terms of what they had done in other communities and what they had done with commercial space. Mr. Zelenka stressed that he did not wish to delay the project. However, he desired more detail and competition in the process, especially as it related to how much the City would have to invest in the project. He noted his intention to place a substitute motion that would include KWG Development Partners, Beam Development, and Midtown Development. He averred that Midtown deserved to be in the mix because of its focus on housing. He questioned whether the community was prepared to invest $30 or $40 million in a project. Mr. Clark understood that the project would utilize tax increment financing. He did not think the City was having a discussion on asking people for money. Mr. Braud responded that the City would be using existing resources and no new tax was proposed. City Manager Taylor clarified that the scope of the financing would depend on the scope of the project and the tools that would be used. He said there was a relative ratio of private equity investment that would be leveraged by the incentives of public investment. Mr. Clark averred that the council should not be arguing about how to divide the pie; rather it should be discussing ways to “make the pie bigger.” He believed this project would do so by virtue of the fact that it would bring more successful and sustainable businesses to the City of Eugene. He underscored that the City had a working relationship with KWG Development Partners that worked well. He asked what further work the City could do to discover more about the qualifications of the developers who had responded to the RFQ if the City was only talking about qualifications and not about specific plans at this point. Mr. Braud pointed out that staff had asked for a concept as part of the response as a submission require- ment. He said if the council was looking for the financial details, it would be simpler to gain this type of detail from one entity. He added that he was unsure of how much time and effort a developer would put into further development of a project without a firm commitment. Mr. Pryor said he trusted KWG Development Partners and would support the staff recommendation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling stressed that the motion would specify that the project would be explored in greater detail and that the information would come back before the council. He reiterated that at this point the council was looking at the qualifications the developer brought to the table. Ms. Taylor commented that she was willing to support selecting Beam Development. She felt more public participation was needed before the council took its next step. She averred that tax increment money was the people’s money. Ms. Solomon felt strongly that KWG Development Partners answered the qualification question that the City put out and backed it up with a solid concept proposal. She said the proposal addressed the council’s questions and “got to the heart” of the issues the downtown presented. She acknowledged the interest at the table in Beam Development’s proposal because of the potential rehabilitation of the Washburn and Centre Court buildings. She believed that KWG also could rehabilitate the buildings and was looking toward possible reuse of those buildings. Additionally, Ms. Solomon underscored that the process was not being rushed given that it had been going prior to her tenure as a city councilor. She noted that KWG representatives were present and were hearing the concerns that were being expressed. She averred that this type of project was why the City had urban renewal districts; this was what urban renewal was “all about.” Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the KWG Development Partners proposal. She had been “moved” by the discussion of keeping two developers in play, but she also felt that Beam Development had not demonstrated that it would include a residential component in its plan. In terms of the urban renewal discussion, she acknowledged that some people perceived it as giving away public money and others believed urban renewal represented an investment. She said every time the discussion came up it was “one more circle around the block” as each side had its own perspective and was unlikely to change. Mr. Zelenka related that he had been excited by the Beam Development proposal and the company’s LEED experience and none of the other developers’ proposals had raised that level of excitement. Ms. Ortiz , seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to select KWG Development Partners and direct the Agency Director to work with KWG Development Partners to 1) explore in more detail project concepts, with opportunities for community input, and 2) bring back to the Urban Renewal Agency for review and approval the more detailed project concepts. The more detailed project concepts shall include the development footprint, feasibility of building reuse, transfer of prop- erty, project scale, mix of uses, design, and level of financial participation from the Urban Re- newal Agency. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to substitute a motion to recognize KWG Devel- opment Partners, Beam Development, and Midtown Development as qualified developers and direct the Agency Director to work with them to 1) explore in more detail project concepts, with opportunities for community input, and 2) bring back to the Urban Renewal Agency for review and approval more detailed project concepts. The more detailed project concepts shall address at least the following issues: project cost and scale, the development footprint, mix of uses, transfers of property, design and sustainability, parking requirements, feasibility of building re- use, preservation of Centre Court and Washburn Buildings, preservation of local businesses, and level of financial participation from the Urban Renewal Agency. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman supported the substitute motion. She supported the rehabilitation of existing buildings. She believed utilizing the strengths of several developers was the most prudent move. She likened choosing KWG Development Partners at this juncture to ordering “a mail-order bride.” She thought it was a “huge commitment” to one developer before the particulars of the proposal would be known. Ms. Solomon opposed the substitute motion. She did not believe having one developer would represent a consolidation of downtown because in the end there would be different owners of the buildings. She was concerned that Beam Development did not have a proposal for more than the Washburn and Centre Court Buildings. Mr. Clark reiterated his support for the staff recommendation. He did not want the project to be delayed. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Bettman voting yes and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting no. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and the substitute motion failed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, reiterated his substitute motion with the exception of Midtown Development. Ms. Bettman did not think Midtown Development had been discussed enough. She felt Midtown had not submitted as much information as some of the other proposals because the RFQ had not clearly indicated that they should. Mayor Piercy acknowledged Ms. Bettman’s concern, but she felt the RFQ clearly called for concepts. Mr. Clark noted that Beam Development did not have much experience with retail space. He asked staff to speak to that. Mr. Braud replied that Beam Development had done some work with retail space, but it was not their focus or their strength. Mr. Clark asked why two development entities should be kept on the table. There was no response. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Piercy voted in fa- vor and the motion passed. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the Eugene City Council at 6:55 p.m. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram and the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Land Use Diagram and Text; Amending Section 9.9580 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; Providing an Im- mediate Effective Date; and Providing a Sunset Date (Jefferson/Far West, MA 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1) City Manager Taylor stated that Terri Harding, Senior Planner for PDD, was present to respond to questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4940, an or- dinance concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to replace the first sentence of section 10 with the following: “This ordinance will be automatically repealed upon the effective date of an Ordinance adopted by the council that (a) establishes area-specific infill standards for the area regulated by the Jefferson/far West Refinement Plan Residential Area Policy 15 and (b) references section 10 of this ordinance.” Ms. Harding pointed out that the amendment changed the ordinance so that it would not have a date certain on the sunset clause and the matter could potentially be returned for council consideration. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Harding affirmed that the repeal of the ordinance would be dependent on another action, the adoption of the area specific infill standards. Ms. Solomon said she was not confident that the area specific infill standards would be completed by January 1. She preferred to leave in the automatic repeal date of 2009. Mr. Zelenka asked what the downside was to not having an automatic repeal. City Manager Taylor replied that the ordinance would have to come back before the council. Ms. Harding added that there were benefits to both approaches. Mr. Pryor liked deadlines because they helped keep an item on task. He preferred the original motion because he felt it would give the council incentive to keep moving on it. Mr. Clark concurred. He said not making the deadline would elucidate another problem that may need to be addressed at that time. He asked Ms. Bettman to clarify her intent. Ms. Bettman averred that the intent of the ordinance was to protect the area while the standards were being developed. She said rather than trying to gauge a specific date, she thought it would make more sense to tie the sunset date to the completion of the work. She asked staff if it was feasible to meet the January deadline. Ms. Harding responded that the infill standards work program had been released in a draft citizen involvement plan and it had a target date of September 2008, for developing a first round of citywide infill standards. She explained that the reason for this was that the direction for the work plan was to develop infill standards for the City as a whole. She said staff would be looking to an advisory committee and to the Planning Commission for direction regarding areas to prioritize for creating area specific standards, but had not yet received such direction. She felt it was doable, however. Ms. Bettman asked if the ordinance would come before the council if it stood without the amendment and had reached its sunset date. City Manager Taylor affirmed that staff would bring it to the council’s attention along with a progress report on where the process was in order to recommend an amendment to extend the time to a date specific. Ms. Taylor indicated her support for the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Solomon commented that having standards in place would give clarity and the standards would be different by neighborhood. She predicted it would be a little convoluted given the vagaries of Eugene. She had thought the issue around Area 15 was outside of the citywide infill standards process and that the area would essentially be a test case of sorts. She asked if the council could give direction to prioritize that area. Ms. Harding affirmed that such a direction would provide staff with the clarity to be confident that the deadline could be met. Ms. Solomon remarked that this was very close to micro-managing. She asked to hear more from the City Manager and staff in terms of getting to a larger goal of infill standards. City Manager Taylor indicated that he preferred to keep a date specific, but he said the amendment did not cause him concern. Mr. Clark reiterated his support for keeping the deadline. Mr. Pryor concurred. Mr. Zelenka agreed that deadlines were good. He did not think setting a deadline would make a difference as to whether the work task was completed. He felt the intent of the amendment would be to not leave the Jefferson/Westside neighborhood “hanging” should the deadline be missed. He said he deferred to Ms. Bettman because it was in her ward. The vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Tay- lor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Clark voting in opposi- tion. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the amendment and it passed. The vote on the main motion, as amended, was unanimous, 8:0. D. ACTION: FY08-FY13 Draft Capital Improvement Program City Manager Taylor stated that before the council was the recommendation to adopt the FY08-FY13 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the FY08-FY13 Capital Improvement Pro- gram incorporating the recommendations forwarded by the Budget Committee and staff. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend the motion to direct staff to consider pub- lic testimony received during the development of the FY08-FY13 Capital Improvement Program in support of individual projects such as the Jeppesen Acres Road Project in the development of the FY10-FY15 Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Poling stated that the Jeppesen Acres Road Project had been put off for years. He wished to put it into the CIP in order to ensure that the project would not be deferred again. He said an overwhelming majority of the people on Jeppesen Acres Road supported the project. He underscored that it was time to meet those citizens’ request. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 10 Work Session The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include in the Capital Improvement Program a project to convert the Washington Park wading pool to a spray pool. Ms. Bettman explained that this was in response to public testimony on the CIP. She said many of the park improvements at Washington Park had been done by volunteers. She felt the empty wading pools, which were currently somewhat neglected, were an attractive nuisance. She underscored that the park was well- used. City Manager Taylor said staff did not recommend including this project at this time. He noted that staff comments had been sent out on this proposal. Ms. Solomon expressed concern regarding the amendment given that it had been discussed at the Budget Committee and had not gained traction there. She related that a small number of people had testified about it, but it had not been through a larger process at the neighborhood or community level. The vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Tay- lor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposi- tion. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the amendment and the amendment failed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reduce the scope of the Dillard Road project from its current description to a project development project in the amount of $420,000. City Manager Taylor indicated that Public Works staff was amenable to the amendment as proposed. The amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 11 Work Session