The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 29, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2007, Work Session, April 9, 2007, Work Session, April 9, 2007, City Council Meeting, and April 16, 2007, Workshop. ATTACHMENTS A. February 26, 2007, Work Session B. April 9, 2007, Work Session C. April 9, 2007, City Council Meeting E. April 16, 2007, Workshop FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070529\S0705292A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 26, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman (via speaker- phone for item C), George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. In the absence of Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy, Ms. Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Pryor reported he attended the most recent meeting of the Lane Council of Governments Board of Directors and heard a presentation on how rural communities could be more effective. He also attended the West Eugene Forum meeting, during which participants worked on a problem/purpose statement. Mr. Pryor reported that earlier that day, he attended the Human Services Commission meeting and learned that given the uncertainty of the renewal of the federal Rural Schools Safety Act, Lane County was preparing two budgets, one of which was a “doomsday” budget that would close entire departments. He said the situation was very serious and was not confined to Lane County. Ms. Solomon asked Acting City Manager Angel Jones to ensure the council had a work session regarding City’s experience with the implementation of the Rental Housing Code. Ms. Taylor indicated she would be absent from the next two meetings as she would be in Washington, DC. She spoke to the development proposal the council would consider in her absence, and questioned if City Manager Dennis Taylor had reviewed all the options regarding the downtown properties. Ms. Taylor urged that the council accept the Beam proposal and use downtown urban renewal funds to buy the Centre Court building. She found the Beam proposal better than the others under consideration because it would renovate an important corner of downtown. Additionally, it would not threaten existing, viable businesses in downtown. She thought the City should do all it could to nurture and assist downtown businesses and incrementally improve those parts of downtown that were not working. Ms. Taylor believed the City would need guarantees from those making the Beam proposal and should protect the offices holding Farmer’s Market and Saturday Market. Mr. Poling shared Ms. Solomon’s interest in having a work session on the Rental Housing Code. He recalled that the council agreed to revisit the fee at some point and requested a review after the first year of implementation. Staff requested two years, so information regarding a full year’s experience with of MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 1 Work Session revenues was available, and that would be after July 1. Mr. Poling wanted to look at the fees collected, where they were spent and what happened to the moneys not spent on the program. He wanted to reduce the fee if additional revenues beyond program expenses were being collected. Mr. Zelenka reported that he attended PeaceHealth’s University District plans unveiling earlier that day, and found the plans to reformat the hospital’s Hilyard campus impressive. He said the project should be an exciting redevelopment for the area. The redevelopment would face Agate Street, some of the existing buildings would be demolished and replaced, and a new entryway created. Mr. Zelenka reported that resident Lisa Warnes made a presentation on the Amazon Headwaters at the last City Club meeting. Mr. Clark commended PeaceHealth for attempting to be inclusive in planning for its facilities and providing something that would be of service to the community for a long time. Mr. Clark noted his attendance at the dedication of the Eugene Japanese American Art Memorial, which he found very moving. He also attended the last meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council and was proud of the work Police Chief Bob Lehner was doing and the leadership he showed in that venue. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that the budget picture for Lane County was dire. Ms. Ortiz commended the work done by the neighborhood leaders and staff at the recent Neighborhood Summit. She said she attended the Domestic Violence Council in conjunction with her work on a Police Commission subcommittee and shared information about the commission with agency staff. Ms. Ortiz commended the Asian Celebration and noted her attendance at a Lunar New Year event. Ms. Ortiz said she visited the Hynix plant with Mayor Kitty Piercy and was welcomed along with kids from Looking Glass, who were there to learn about job opportunities. Ms. Ortiz said she and Mayor Piercy attended the recent Town Hall sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith. She said those in attendance had a good conversation. Ms. Ortiz said as an employee of PeaceHealth, it was good to see how many services would still be provided at the Hilyard campus. She was happy to see plans for a wellness center. B. WORK SESSION: Exceptions for Tailgating Around Autzen Stadium The council was joined by Captain Pete Kerns of the Eugene Police Department and Jerry Lidz of the City Attorney’s Office. Police Chief Bob Lehner was also present for the item. Captain Kerns provided an overview of the issue and the options before the council. 1. No Action - Take no action, which would continue the current level of enforcement for violations of the Eugene Code. 2. Expanded Area - Direct staff to develop a proposed amendment to the Eugene Code to allow consumption in an expanded area neighboring Autzen Stadium. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 2 Work Session 3. Permit System - Direct the City Manager to draft an ordinance establishing requirements for private property owners or managers that must be met in order to permit drinking at pay-for-use lots. This option would be limited to pay-for-use lots in a geographically defined area on game days for four hours before and two hours after each home collegiate football game. The City Council could also choose to direct the City Manager to develop these requirements following consultation with the affected property owners, the University of Oregon, and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). 4. OLCC Licensing - Amend the Eugene Code to prohibit property owners and managers from permitting and allowing drinking on unlicensed premises for which they are responsible. 5. Repeal Autzen Stadium Parking Lot Exceptions - Repeal Eugene Code Section 4.190 (4), which provides the exemption for the State-owned parking lots immediately adjacent to Autzen Stadium. Mr. Poling noted the long tradition of tailgating at Lane County and said he wanted people to be treated equally and fairly throughout the community. If the University of Oregon (UO) was exempted, he wanted to do the same for others who managed their own parking lots. He said many of the parking lots were run by nonprofit organizations that relied on the funding that renting the lots provided. The reduction of parking at Autzen Stadium forced people to go someplace else. He supported Option 3 but suggested that if it was not adopted, the council consider Option 5. Ms. Solomon did not think Option 5 was viable. She preferred to expand the exemption area. Referring to the nearby Chase Village apartments, Ms. Solomon asked if those residents violated the law when they invited their friends over to have a beer before the game. Captain Kerns clarified that the ordinance would apply to private property that was open to the public for a fee. Mr. Clark did not want to see unequal enforcement but he pointed out the department had responded to its perception of increased issues in the area. He thought the public saw the change in enforcement as a policy change. He supported Option 2 and expansion of the area upon which the 1984 rule applied. Mr. Pryor asked if Option 3 would apply to the University of Oregon (UO). Captain Kerns indicated the council would make that decision. Mr. Pryor asked how the permit would affect behavior “on the ground.” Kerns said the department’s concern was for people’s safety, minor use, and illegal sales. Tailgating at the UO represented the largest unregulated drinking event in Eugene, and the ordinance could bring some responsibility to bear on property owners; it could make the area a safer place. Mr. Pryor did not want to remove all controls from drinking in the area as it was his sense that the alcohol- related incidents were getting more frequent. He thought if that was the case it was in the City’s interest to figure out how to place an additional layer of responsibility on people. He asked if Option 3 was considered by staff as a way to impose additional responsibility or to restrict drinking. Chief Lehner said the idea behind the permitting system was to recognize that property owners were currently subletting parts of their property but taking a hands-off attitude toward what occurred. The permitting system was intended to encourage property owners to place a requirement on sub-lessees that they impose some requirements on the behavior of their tenants, such as not knowingly permitting minor use or alcohol sales. That would give the property owner the ability to turn down that business the next year if violations were committed. The property owner would not want to risk losing the revenue and the lessee would not want to lose the space, giving them an incentive to work together. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor did not think it was staff’s intent to provide an unfair advantage to the UO. Chief Lehner said at this time, staff did not know how much of the ordinance could be legally applied to the UO and what the UO might volunteer to do by way of compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Lidz noted that generally, the City enforced general criminal laws on UO property and did not require the UO go through the permitting process. Ms. Ortiz supported either Option 2 or 5. She thought people needed to be accountable and noted she had no idea what happened there until she attended a game, and “then she was appalled.” It seemed to her like it was a big party, and that was okay. She wanted the City’s laws applied equally, and wanted to see a permit approach as opposed to an expanded area approach. Mr. Zelenka thought there was a problem related to disorderly conducts on the part of a minority of males from 30 to 50 who did not appear to think the rules applied at Saturday football games. He was concerned about unequal enforcement between the UO and adjacent property owners. He did not favor Option 5 and thought the expanded area was “just punting.” He found the right balance in Option 3 as it placed responsibility back on the property owners. He wanted to include the UO in any approach selected and wanted the UO to police its back yard in the same manner as everyone else. Mr. Poling noted that Option 3 also included the expanded area. Mr. Poling pointed out that the council action only directed the manager to proceed to a public hearing, which provided time for additional input. He added that he did was not a proponent of repealing the UO’s exemption; he wanted to be fair. Mr. Poling commended EPD staff for the work it did controlling the situation at the UO in light of how many people attended football games. In fairness to those who tailgated at UO games, Mr. Poling pointed out that the council was discussing a very few number of the people who participated in tailgating each week. Mr. Poling noted his concerns about the fees and permitting necessary for Option 3 and indicated he wanted to hear more. Mr. Clark said the council frequently discussed cultural events during meetings, but he was unaware of any other cultural event in Eugene that drew more than 60,000 people. He said that if the City chose to proceed with changing that, it should proceed with caution. He continued to support Option 2, noting the reduction on parking available at the UO that was not envisioned in the 1984 ordinance. Option 2 merely took the City back to that time. He feared that the City would chip away at nonprofit organizations’ fund raising mechanism by imposing fees. Ms. Taylor thought fees would be complicated and difficult to enforce but she wanted to do more thinking about the ordinance. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the additional complication created by Option 3 and said he would want to know if the UO would participate; if not, the option was moot and he would be inclined to support Option 2. Ms. Solomon asked what requirements a private property owner would be signing on to, and what would be considered a violation. She also asked if the fees that would be collected would generate enough revenue to MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 4 Work Session hire an office to monitor the lots on game day. Chief Lehner said that the options were not fully fleshed out and staff had hoped to get the options narrowed to one or two viable options that could be researched in more detail, including the requirements imposed. He suggested the requirements could be as simple as a permit that spelled out the basic restrictions on sales, use by minors, and control of parties. He believed the ordinance would give leverage to the property owner rather than the City. He said staff could come back with some research on Option 3; he characterized Option 2 as a fall-back, saying the two options were essentially the same except for the permit, and the City would still have to figure out how to get to the issue of increasing property owners’ share of the responsibility associated with such events. Ms. Solomon looked forward to seeing more detail about the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zelenka said since the ordinance was originally enacted, several changes had been made to the area such as the construction of the practice field and the Moshofsky Center, reducing the amount of land available for parking and tailgating, which pushed the use out to the surrounding neighborhood. He thought that the ordinance needed to be updated. He hoped the UO would volunteer to comply with the ordinance and consider incorporating it in its code of conduct. He wanted to see a continuum of options within Option 3 that at the low range mandated that property owners must secure permits so that they knew the rules and passed them on to the renters and at the high range mandated the property owners to pay the City for the costs of enforcement. He believed that those who cause the problem should pay for it. Mr. Pryor said if the City went to some type of permitting system he did not want it be an onerous, expensive permitting system; rather, he hoped to create a system that placed a modicum of responsibility on property owners and UO and which tracked what was occurring. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to draft an ordi- nance establishing requirements for private property owners or managers that must be met in order to permit drinking at pay-for-use lots. Mr. Clark suggested that the council was concerned with the public safety issues associated with how people behave when they drink too much, and there were existing laws for that. It made him uncomfortable when the City established a new bureaucratic system as he thought it would be self-perpetuating and its purpose could change over time with entirely different outcomes. He continued to support Option 2. Mr. Poling said he was leaning toward support of Option 3 until he heard Mr. Zelenka’s comments about fees for enforcement. He thought that would defeat the purpose of what the council was trying to accom- plish. He suggested that the council consider proceeding with Option 3 and direct staff to immediately contact the UO to determine if it would voluntarily obtain a permit if it could not be required to get a permit. If it was not willing to do so, the council could drop Option 3 and fall back to Option 2. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment with the proviso that the fallback would not be automatic. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Sergeant Kerns clarified that the UO paid for the costs of police security inside the stadium and for traffic control. Staff did not currently monitor the properties in question, and generally officers designated for traffic control responded to those calls. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Clark voting no. C. ACTION: HUD REVENUE BONDS MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Acting City Manager Angel Jones spoke to the need for addressing the item at this time, saying the intent of the City was to use the resources as a tool for several projects. Staff brought several items forward to the council indicating that intent, including council approval of the 108 application, the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations approval of the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative grant application, and the Request for Qualifications on the Broadway Project. Staff wanted to be strategic and proactive in securing valuable tools to achieve the common goal of a vibrant downtown. She recommended the council authorize the entire funding to move the downtown revitalization forward. Acting City Manager Jones said the issue was time-sensitive due to the number of projects with related time lines, including the options for the West Broadway project, which cost money to renew. Mayor Piercy and Ms. Bettman joined the meeting via speakerphone. Ms. Taylor was opposed to renewing the options for properties that currently house existing businesses that were thriving. She thought that constituted a threat to those businesses. She believed that urban renewal gave management too much freedom to act without council agreement. Ms. Bettman objected to having a public hearing before the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Advisory Committee rather than the council, although she acknowledged the final decision rested with the council. She thought it important for the council to hold the hearing because it would hear from the community regarding the value of the projects to be funded by the money. She said that the money in question was generally used to benefit low-income residents. She had requested a list of projects that benefited from the money in the past and there were economic development loans to Plaza Latina, accessibility projects, WomenSpace, Looking Glass, and Shelter Care. The money filled a gap where the City did not normally have money. Any project funded with the money should meet community needs. Ms. Bettman did not think people would refer the resolution to a public vote because there would be no projects to react to. Adopting the resolution circumvented the community’s ability to refer projects to the ballot. Mayor Piercy asked what was different about the process and if the City still had the same focus on trying to use the money to benefit low-income residents. Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services said that for the City to access the brownfield grant, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required that it use the Section 108 borrowing through the agency and that it pledge as a revenue source the CDGB revenues as an “ultimate backstop.” The City would not use those CDBG revenues to pay the debt but rather would use project revenues and urban renewal revenues with the goal of avoiding the use of the CDBG revenues to pay the debt. If the City could find no other way to pay back the debt, HUD could hold back future CDBG revenues but that was not the City or HUD’s intention. Mr. Pryor did not think the approach being proposed was an attempt to circumvent the public process. He did not have a problem with the first amendment Ms. Bettman suggested and e-mailed to councilors prior to the meeting, which was to hold a public hearing. He said the City was trying to create a revenue mechanism that it could take advantage of swiftly. He did not envision that anything would occur the council would not be aware of or would not authorize. Mr. Zelenka did not think anything nefarious was occurring but he acknowledged the money was public money and the council should not take away the public’s ability to refer projects for a vote. He thought the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 6 Work Session council could institute a public hearing once the project level had been reached. He supported the first amendment Ms. Bettman suggested. Ms. Bettman was willing to postpone consideration on her second suggested amendment to the motion, related to the City’s financial policies. Mr. Clark agreed the council wanted to protect people’s right to refer a specific project. He asked if failure to approve the motion came with opportunity costs. Mr. Braud said the City was dealing with purchase options with a 12-month life, and some were half-way through that lifetime. Mr. Clark asked if expiration of the options could cost the City more in the future or loss of those opportunities altogether. Mr. Braud agreed there was a risk of spending more money. Ms. Bettman preferred to wait on the resolution until the City had a project. She did not think there was support for that, however, and was willing to compromise if the council held the public hearing rather than the CDBG Advisory Committee. Ms. Bettman said the project was enormously costly on an upfront basis. She realized the CDBG money was pledged and the intent was as stated by Ms. Cutsogeorge, but she perceived competition for urban renewal funds that might result in the council deciding to use the CDBG funding after all, making it unavailable for the types of projects she previously mentioned. Mr. Zelenka thought the City would likely have to renegotiate some of the agreements and was glad to hear that they had automatic renewals at a modest fee. Ms. Taylor did not consider $30,000 modest. She was disturbed by the hint of urgency and the statement council would be involved when the council would be going on break soon and councilors would not be around. She thought that was why the manager did it. She reiterated that the options constituted a threat to the businesses in those buildings now and hoped they were not renewed. She thought the council should have been consulted about the options. Ms. Solomon asked staff to comment on Ms. Bettman’s proposed amendment. Ms. Jones said staff had no concerns about the amendment. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4938. Ms. Bettman moved to amend Section 4 of the ordinance as follows: “Before any revenue bonds authorized by this ordinance are issued to finance a project, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the project or projects to be funded with the revenue bonds and au- thorize the issuance by a subsequent resolution.” Mr. Pryor and Ms. Taylor accepted Ms. Bettman’s amendment as a friendly amendment. Mr. Clark asked if staff recommended a time frame for the council public hearing after a project was identified. Ms. Jones said no. Ms. Bettman did not think a time line was needed as she believed staff could expedite something if it wished. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Jones to speak to that. Ms. Jones indicated her expectation that the manager and mayor would discuss that when they planned the council agendas. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman did not necessarily support all the ideas being contemplated, but she thought the amendment vastly improved the resolution. She regretted that the City was taking away a right from the community in the form of the referral by moving forward with the resolution without a project attached to it. She thought the City was denying the public that opportunity, but she acknowledged the lack of support for that concept on the part of the council majority. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: April 9, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/24 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 5/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/21 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 9, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported that the road backlog issue was a statewide issue on which the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) had been working. LCOG was seeking State resources in support of all communi- ties’ backlog of road repair. Mayor Piercy called the council’s attention to the US Mayor’s Newsletter in which Eugene received much recognition for its sustainability and livability work. She recognized Lynne Eichner Kelley for providing the information upon which the article was based. Mayor Piercy noted the community’s receipt of the Parks and Open Space (POS) newsletter reporting on the outcome of the 1998 parks and open space bond measure. Mayor Piercy noted the next day was Law Enforcement Day. She recognized the work of local law enforcement personnel. Mayor Piercy acknowledged community concern about the sewer pipeline through the wetlands and anticipated the council would discuss the issue. Mr. Pryor said the Human Services Commission (HSC) had met earlier that day to discuss its budget but there was great uncertainty about the amount to be received, so two versions were being prepared. One version would reflect a worst case scenario where about $500,000 would be cut, having a devastating impact on human services. He made it clear to HSC staff that if it wished to approach the two cities for funding, it needed to do that soon and not expect the cities to make it whole. Mr. Pryor said the West Eugene Study Group working on transportation solutions on the west side was evolving into a group with a collaborative/recommendation role to the City and attempting to recruit more members. He and the mayor were attending. He thought it a good group with good diversity. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor announced that Council Committee on Transportation was unlikely to be able to report to the council by the end of April as he previously hoped, and suggested that date might be pushed back. He thought it a good compromise because the committee was making good progress and he preferred a quality product to a fast product. Ms. Taylor thought it would be good if the committee on transportation alerted the council to what it was thinking of prior to forwarding its recommendations. Ms. Taylor reported that she had attended several meetings of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) and a Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) meeting over the council break. She said that LRAPA was beginning its strategic planning effort. She noted the council’s receipt of the CCIGR’s minutes. Ms. Taylor said she was also receiving many complaints, comments, and inquiries about the sewer pipeline, as well as calls about burglaries in south Eugene, where residents did not feel they received enough attention. Ms. Taylor congratulated Mayor Piercy for her presentation at the City Club and for a good response to questions. Ms. Bettman noted her opposition to the public safety income tax as originally construed, although she supported adequate funding for public safety and would like to have seen a more defensible ballot measure. Ms. Bettman wanted to publicly state her opposition to the recall effort directed at Lane County Commis- sioner Bobby Green and said it was a misapplication of the recall processes. She asked people not to sign the petition and said if sufficient signatures were gathered she would oppose the recall. Ms. Bettman referred to the recently released public safety liability management report and recalled that the City Manager and Police Chief promised a complete investigation; the report was not that investigation. It was a very limited examination of the evidence associated with the criminal investigation. She suggested that the responsibility to pursue a complete investigation lay with the council. While she was not prepared to place a motion on the table now, she wanted the council to think about it. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Bettman for her comments about Commissioner Green and said he supported them. He also expressed appreciation to commissioners Faye Stewart and Bill Dwyer, who made a difficult decision regarding the future of the county. He hoped there was no recall attempt directed at them and would continue to support them if one was attempted. Mr. Poling announced that the public hearing for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission fiscal year 2008 budget would occur on April 19, 2007, at 7:30 a.m. at Springfield City Hall. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling about the scheduling of the rental housing ordinance update, City Manager Dennis Taylor believed the work session had been scheduled for June 13. Mr. Poling commended the work of Michelle Mortenson, the City’s public service officer, who was the subject of an article in The Register-Guard earlier that day. Mr. Poling also recognized the work of Council Coordinator Lynda Rose, who was leaving her position to take on new challenges. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon noted her participation on a Public Safety Coordinating Council subcommittee on youth that was taking on the project of completing a systemwide map. Eugene Police Chief Bob Lehner was chairing the subcommittee. She thought the map would be a useful tool for the allocation of public safety resources. Ms. Solomon noted the recent Housing Policy Board meeting, at which bills related to manufactured housing were discussed. Ms. Solomon noted her meeting with representatives of the Ash Institute of Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University. Eugene was one of fifty finalists and one of the three finalists in the affordable housing category for which it had applied, for its landbanking program. She looked forward to hearing the results of the application. Mr. Clark agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Poling with regard to Commissioner Green and the other commissioners, saying it was the wrong tool to express the sentiments that voters felt. He thought a recall a bad idea and suggested that people use elections to express their sentiments instead. Mr. Clark said he attended a board meeting of the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County at which the mayor spoke on sustainability. He also attended his first Human Rights Commission meeting and asked the council on the commission’s behalf to keep the date of November 9 free for a human rights conference scheduled to occur in Eugene. He noted absences on the commission’s Education and Outreach Committee and encouraged people to contact him for information about serving on that or other commission committees. Mr. Clark said he met with Dave Briggs, the executive director of the YMCA, and discussed the Santa Clara area’s long-expressed interest in a community center in that area. He suggested the idea of partnering with the YMCA to provide such a center in the area at a time when the City might not be able to do so, and discussions were underway. He would update the council as those discussions progressed. Mr. Zelenka agreed with the remarks of other councilors regarding the commissioners who voted for the public safety income tax, saying they had shown leadership and the recall was not the tool to be used in the case of political disagreement. He concurred with Mr. Clark that the correct approach was the ballot box. Mr. Zelenka also commended the work of Ms. Mortenson and expressed his regret about Ms. Rose’s departure. Mr. Zelenka was disappointed in the Civic Stadium court decision that awarded the future of Civic Stadium to Eugene School District 4J rather than to the City of Eugene and suggested that there were other venues through which the stadium could be maintained in that status. Mr. Zelenka said that the Council Committee on Transportation was making progress toward a recommen- dation to the council and would soon put together a package of solutions and report on its progress to the council. He thought if the committee could come together to support such a package, so could all of Eugene. He assured the public that the council was putting hundreds of hours into the subject of transporta- tion, as opposed to the single hour the council spent discussing the resolution regarding the Iraq war. th Mr. Zelenka noted his receipt on behalf of the Mayor of the City’s 28 Tree City Foundation award and th reported on the tree planting that took place near Willamette Street and 16 Avenue. He hoped the flag the City received from the foundation could be displayed, adding he would like to see all 28 displayed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she met with some neighbors of Jacobs Landing interested in seeing a crosswalk near that development. Ms. Ortiz indicated she would ask the council to support a one-day training in May to take advantage of the Lee Mu Nuah fact that , a renowned facilitator, was coming to Eugene to work with the School District 4J that month. Ms. Ortiz reported she would be attending an upcoming police training on the use of force the following week. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor that the HSC budget picture was very somber. She expressed appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners for the leadership it had shown. City Manager Taylor said a lot of work had been done preparing for the April 25 council meeting on downtown development. He noted that the time set aside for the public hearing on April 16 was available due to a lack of public hearings, and the mayor and he arranged for a public workshop of individuals to discuss downtown challenges. He anticipated a good, broad-based panel. City Manager Taylor said that several bills related to annexation were introduced, and on the recommenda- tion of Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson, time was set aside at the Wednesday meeting for more discussion of that topic. City Manager Taylor said he viewed five of the Beam and KWG projects in the Portland area and thought a tremendous experience to see that work firsthand. The companies offered to be available on April 21-22 to conduct the council on a similar tour. Mayor Piercy pointed out that April 21 was Earth Day, which created a conflict for many councilors. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for completing the improvements associated with the Farmers Market prior to the opening of the market. She thanked the council for its financial support. Ms. Taylor agreed, saying the market had more space for walking. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman about the consultant’s report. She thought it up to the council to ensure something more happened. Mr. Clark congratulated staff for its receipt of the Innovation in Government award. B. WORK SESSION: Ordinance Concerning Eminent Domain—Two Parcels Adjacent to Madison Middle School for Community Park Purposes The council was joined for the item by Parks and Open Space Manager Johnny Medlin. Mr. Medlin provided a brief update, reminding the council it had been trying to develop a community scale park in the Santa Clara area for ten years. He voiced his support for the City’s “willing seller” approach. However, the City had been unable to find willing sellers in the area. Staff determined that two parcels adjacent to Madison Middle School would be an appropriate site. Since the council directed staff to prepare a condemnation ordinance for its review, staff continued discussion with the property owners and still had no willing seller. However, staff was not recommending the council move forward with eminent domain at this time pending the outcome of a Ballot Measure 37 claim related to one parcel and the legislation being considered by the current legislature. Mr. Medlin said the other property is under dispute with regard to MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 4 Work Session ownership, and the City was not sure who owned the property. One of the claimants maybe a willing seller; the other was not. It did not appear either parcel would change use in the near term. Mayor Piercy believed the legislature was intent on completing its work by mid-June, and asked when the item would be rescheduled. Mr. Medlin said staff had not discussed that. He thought it was the council’s decision. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked what legislative action was contemplated. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated there was a committee looking at a possible rewrite of Ballot Measure 37. If the legislature referred such a measure, the measure would be revised in a way that reduced the types of claims that could be filed, which would possibly have an effect on the property with a potential Ballot Measure 37 claim. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the legislature failed to take action. Mr. Klein said the dispute with the property owner would remain as it was today. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a disadvantage to adopting the ordinance to make the City’s position clear while awaiting the resolution of the issues identified. Mr. Medlin said that it placed a different tone on the negotiations. There might also be Ballot Measure 39 issues. Mr. Klein said that because the property would be acquired for public use, he did not think there would be a problem with Ballot Measure 39. He agreed with Mr. Medlin the tone of negotiations could be affected. Ms. Bettman asked where the money intended for the acquisition was, if it was collecting interest, and if so, how much was it and where did it go. Mr. Medlin said the amount in question was originally larger and nearer to $1 million, but the costs of working on the acquisition were charged against the capital account for the acquisition, currently leaving only about $900,000. Ms. Bettman suggested that was an argument in favor of moving expeditiously. Mr. Poling hoped that until the legal issues were resolved with regard to both parcels, the City continued to negotiate in good faith and not use the hammer of eminent domain unless it became absolutely necessary. He asked why the work session was scheduled, as he felt a memorandum updating the council would have been sufficient. He did not see the council being able to take action. City Manager Taylor said former Councilor Gary Papé had been interested in the topic and advocated for the work session. He agreed that the discussion was premature. He thought the delay would give the City the opportunity to have a better working relationship with the owners after the outstanding disputes about the one property were resolved. Ms. Taylor asked about the current use of the land. Mr. Medlin said one was zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and the other was rural residential (RR). Ms. Taylor asked if the residents of Santa Clara wanted the City to acquire the property in question. Mr. Medlin said the active residents with whom the City had worked were in support of the acquisition. Ms. Taylor thought the land in question quite distant from most of the people living in the area. Mr. Medlin conceded the parcel was on the edge of the urban growth boundary but there was considerable residential development on three sides of it, as well as County residents living to the east. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Klein why eminent domain for parks was different than for other properties. Mr. Klein said Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 226 stated that when a government wanted to condemn land for parks, it must pass an ordinance; in other cases, the government may pass an ordinance or resolution with the legal description of the property. The City Charter also required a public hearing and 10 working days’ MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 5 Work Session public notice of the hearing. Ms. Taylor asked how long eminent domain took to accomplish. Mr. Klein said the State law included a quick take process that took less time than the 12 to 18 months the legal process required. Ms. Taylor asked if the owners of the land could do something with the land in the meantime. Mr. Klein said yes. However, unless they were to self-finance, it would be difficult for the property owners to secure bank financing for development in the light of a condemnation trial. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Klein reviewed the elements of Ballot Measure 39. Mr. Zelenka observed that the measure made it much easier for those being condemned to receive attorney fees. Mr. Zelenka asked if the acquisition would require an urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion for the park to be developed. Mr. Medlin said that for the City to use the property for parks purposes, it would need to seek a conditional use permit for a change of use from Lane County or bring the property inside the UGB. In other words, the property could become a City park without expanding the UGB. Mr. Klein noted there were City parks outside the UGB but they were not community centers. If the park contained a community center providing urban service levels and requiring an urban level of services, it would probably have to come inside the UGB. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Medlin said staff had not discussed either a UGB expansion or the conditional use process with Lane County. Mayor Piercy thought such discussions would be useful. Mr. Clark asked if there were uses on the property that could delay the City’s acquisition process. Mr. Klein did not think so. He said the property owner could attempt to create a use that increased the value of the property and made it more expensive for the City to acquire. If that occurred, and the City condemned the property, the fair market value of the development must be paid; however, that would not preclude condemnation. Mr. Clark recalled a discussion about an easement across the four parcels that go around the school and were between the Faver and McClay parcels. He asked if that was still part of the City’s long-term planning if both end parcels were acquired. Mr. Medlin thought if the City acquired both parcels it would have an interest in acquiring the southerly portion of those parcels in between. He did not think the City would seek an easement, but would instead seek to acquire the southerly portion of these parcels. Mr. Clark said that former councilor Papé had been interested in filling a promise he had made to residents of Ward 5 to see the park built, but he did not feel the same motivation of time and was not interested in tying staff’s hand or paying lawyers to fight battles that were more contentious than necessary. He wanted to hear a progress report regarding the acquisition by summer 2007. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Medlin that the middle school was an active school operated by School District 4J. She further determined from Mr. Medlin it would probably take at least five years to develop a community park. Ms. Bettman asked how long it would take to determine ownership of the parcel with disputed ownership. Mr. Medlin did not know. The parties involved were attempting to settle the dispute out of court. The City had tried to stay out of the conflict but let both parties know of its interest in buying the property. Ms. Bettman asked about the potential Ballot Measure 37 claim. Mr. Medlin was unsure of the basis of the claim. The City’s assessment was based on the current zoning and the property owner refused to sell it at the appraised price. He hoped for a better resolution from the legislature so the City could work with the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 6 Work Session property owner on the value. The property owner wanted to gain financially from the parcel and if the City could determine what was reasonable, he thought the property owner would accept it. Ms. Bettman was willing to defer to the councilors who served the area. However, she was troubled by the open-ended nature of the issue. There did not appear to be a plan on the part of staff for moving forward and she thought if the City took a definitive stand some of the outstanding issues might galvanize. She did not see any resolution in sight. Mr. Medlin emphasized the division’s interest in acquiring the properties but he believed any precipitous move would cost the City more rather than less. Speaking to the councilors from the area, Ms. Bettman suggested that they ask for the item to be brought back forward on a time-certain basis. Mr. Clark reiterated his interest in a progress report in July 2007 and suggested another work session could follow, perhaps in July or August. He determined from Mr. Medlin that there were no City resources available from the last bond measure to develop the park in the near-term. Mr. Medlin said that minor development such as grading and turf could occur before five years, but the structural features contem- plated, such as a pool, would likely require funding through a future bond measure. City Manager Taylor recalled that the council discussed a bond measure in 2008-2010 to address some of the recommendations from the Tier 1 and Tier II recommendations. He said that staff was pursuing the property as part of the City’s acquisition strategy to get a 40-acre footprint somewhere in the Santa Clara area. C. WORK SESSION: Who is the City Attorney’s Client? Obtaining Second Opinions on Legal Matters City Attorney Klein was present for the item. He provided an overview of the topic, noting that the rules governing the question of who the lawyer’s client was were to be found in the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules do not differentiate between in-house counsel and outside counsel and they do not differentiate between agencies or level of government. The rules were the same for both private and public entities. The rule stated that the lawyer’s client was the entity itself, not the president of the entity, the board of directors, the city manager, or the elected officials. Mr. Klein said the duty of the attorney was to represent the client as a whole in two roles, one as a legal advisor and one as a legal advocate. In the attorney’s role as legal advisor, it was the attorney’s duty to inform a client as to what the attorney believed the law was and what it required, what the risks were, and how the client could lawfully comply with those requirements and achieve an objective consistent with the law. As legal advisor, the attorney did not get direction as to what its advice should be from the client. City Attorney Klein said as legal advocate, the attorney’s role was different; at that time, it was to take the position articulated by the client and represent it or defend it in whatever venue necessary. Speaking to the issue of securing a second opinion, City Attorney Klein said that the council merely had to request a second opinion to receive one. Mr. Klein distributed a list of the clients his firm represented with potential legal conflicts with the City and a list of the conflict waivers the City Manager had signed going back to January 2004. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman first commended the work of Mr. Klein’s firm and the attorneys who represented the City. She said they were knowledgeable and she would not hesitate to retain any of them privately. However, the context for the discussion was different. Ms. Bettman said she did not disagree with Mr. Klein’s remarks about the role of the attorney, but she found there were situations where she questioned if that was what was happening. She thought there were many variables that influenced the attorney’s advice in different contexts. Ms. Bettman said the City may not be getting a description of just what the law was. She had multiple examples of that which she doubted she would have time to offer. Regarding the issue of conflict of interest, Ms. Bettman said the council did not have sufficient votes of support to direct the City Manager to create an office of the attorney, but she continued to think it was an overarching issue and problem that the City contracted with a firm that was dependent on contracts with other clients that were adversarial to the City in cases of litigation. There had been situations where she thought that the City Attorney was not advocating aggressively enough for City interests because of fear it would alienate a client like Hynix, due to the work it did for the City. She said that statutes regarding conflict of interest existed just to avoid such a situation. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any State constitutional prohibition against the council obtaining a second legal opinion. Mr. Klein said there was nothing in the State constitution or State statute that governed the council; the question was what the charter allowed. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a charter prohibition. Mr. Klein said that the charter provided for powers to be granted the manager and the council; he saw nothing that prohibited the council from directing the manager to secure another opinion. Ms. Bettman asked if the council could direct the manager to follow a certain legal opinion. Mr. Klein did not think there was anything to preclude that, pointing out the council received opinions from a variety of lawyers all the time. There was nothing to preclude the council from liking something said by a lawyer and adopting it. What the council did not get if it took that approach was a legal defense on the reliance of counsel. He said that much of the firm’s advice was in the form of confidential legal memoranda because the City did not want those opinions to become ammunition for the City’s opponents. He said the council did not have to do what he said, but the council did not get the advice of counsel defense if relying on another attorney’s opinion. Mr. Pryor thought the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) regarding the topic was clear and he appreciated the points offered in it. He agreed with Mr. Klein’s remarks regarding who the client was. He said that professionals, regardless of whether they were accountants or lawyers, worked for the entity and take direction from the entity. He did not believe that he as an individual had the authority to give Mr. Klein direction. While he might not like the advice he received, he had never had reason to question the honesty, sincerity, or integrity of Mr. Klein’s opinions and advice. He thought the discussion important so that roles were clarified. He agreed about the value of second opinions and said that they should also be sought by the body rather than by an individual councilor. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Klein said that the council might disagree with his advice and request that he prepare the most legal defensible position on the council’s behalf. He would do his best to defend that position, adding that such a situation had come up while he served as the attorney. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Zelenka clarified with Mr. Klein that the entities on the list were current or past clients of the firm. He asked what would happen if the council disagreed with the manager’s grant of the waiver and believed a conflict existed. Mr. Klein said that he would have to think more about the council’s role in such waivers before offering any input. He said that the issue related to the charter and the powers of the manager and the council. Mr. Zelenka thought he saw a potential problem in that the council might not agree with a waiver. Mr. Clark concurred with Ms. Bettman about the high quality of the advice provided by the City Attorney’s Office. He observed that in the cases where there was a conflict and a waiver issued the council had not subsequently received unsound advice from the attorney. If a conflict waiver created unsound advice for the client, the council would deal with that but he saw no evidence of a problem and was unclear as to what the council was trying to fix. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling about the council work session that occurred in 1991, Mr. Klein said that work session occurred because the council had questions about how conflicts should be handled and how they were handled. Nothing in State law had triggered the work session. The rules had not changed with regard to how conflicts and conflict waivers worked. Ms. Taylor said the council was not informed of the waivers granted and she suggested that might be a useful thing. With regard to second opinions, Mr. Klein indicated that the council could ask the manager to secure a second opinion but Ms. Taylor did not think that would work as the manager had the opinion he wanted. City Manager Taylor said that it was not a matter of what he wanted but a matter of what the City Attorney indicated was the law. Ms. Taylor said that the City Manager should not be the one asking for a second opinion. City Manager Taylor suggested that was where the charter created a dilemma for the council. Mr. Klein explained that the charter gave the manager the authority to employ the City Attorney. The council could direct the manager to secure a second opinion and could direct him to secure that opinion from outside Eugene to avoid the taint of legal advice from Eugene. Ms. Taylor asked about unpaid legal advice. Mr. Klein said that if individual councilors contacted an attorney for advice and shared that with the council, it was not forbidden. Ms. Taylor asked if the council could direct the manager to hire an in-house attorney. Mr. Klein said the council could not legally tell the manager to hire an in-house attorney. It could tell him to do so and even threaten to hold it against him during his evaluation but if he failed to do so he would not be violating the law. The City Council could ask the manager to hire an in-house attorney. Ms. Taylor determined from City Manager Taylor that the only way the council could establish an in-house attorney was through a change to the charter. Ms. Bettman observed that a past manager had signed waivers for Peace Health and Hyundai and asked if they were still clients. Mr. Klein said that Peace Health and Hyundai were once clients of his firm but he could not say they still were. He confirmed that Phillip Morris had been a client of the firm. Ms. Bettman determined from the City Manager Taylor that he granted a five-year contract extension for the City Attorney’s firm in 2004. She asked if anything in the contact precluded the City from using the services of another attorney. City Manager Taylor thought there was such a provision. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman noted that many of the documents she reviewed were confidential and she could not quote them, but she did not have the legal framework for cities from the firm Harrang Long, and the last statement under “how to use the attorney” was “Use the attorney’s advice or get a second opinion if you believe the legal advice may be wrong and do not want to follow it.” Ms. Bettman did not see anything in statute related to how to secure a second opinion and suggested there were at least four ways the council could seek such an opinion without a charter amendment. She pointed out that the council just told the manager to contact with one or two developers for downtown. Mr. Zelenka also felt the advice given by the City Attorney was good, and determined from Mr. Klein the firm had 35 to 40 employees located in Eugene, Salem, and Portland. Mr. Zelenka was interested in having more clarity about second opinions. He asked what happened if a second opinion differed from the attorney’s opinion. Mr. Klein suggested that the answer depended on what the council wanted to do and the reason for the second opinion. Where the courts stated that the advice of counsel could be relied upon, it was generally in regard to general counsel. If the council liked the second opinion, it could follow it. Mr. Zelenka suggested that in situations where no case law existed to provide guidance it became a matter of interpretation and opinion, and there was a wide variety of opinion on the council and among attorneys. He thought that was where the council needed clarity. He posited a situation in which the council directed the manager to seek a second opinion and it differed from the first opinion, saying “then what?” Mr. Klein suggested the answer depended on what the council wanted to do and why it requested a second opinion. If the council was trying to get a different opinion to be able to have the defensive advice of counsel, the handful of court decisions that existed with regard to the liability of governing bodies and their reliance on the advice of counsel spoke to an entity’s general counsel. He thought there had been very few City Attorney opinions related to possible personal liability, and hundreds of opinions that did not speak to the issue at all. Mr. Klein suggested that if the council did not like the opinion provided by the City Attorney’s Office and sought a second opinion that it preferred, it could follow the second opinion. Mr. Klein said that when he offered an opinion, he tried to identify any ambiguities that existed, the existing statutes and precedents, his interpretation, and suggested a certain percentage success rate. If an area was unclear, a knowledgeable attorney would point that out. He said if the council decided against his advice he would provide the council with the best defensible arguments he could. He thought the advantage of a second opinion was that another attorney might suggest an argument he had not thought of, and if the situation involved a decision so important to the council it was willing to pay for a second opinion, he thought it worth the cost. He suggested in the case of a land use decision, the applicant could be the party that bore the cost and the applicant’s attorney could provide the council with legal advice. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Klein said that if he suggested to the council that there was a 30 percent possibility a court would rule in one way and the council decided to pursue that 30 percent possibility, it should do so, and his firm would write as defensible a position as it could. He would provide risk analysis in confidential memorandums or executive sessions so the information could not be used against the City. Mr. Pryor thought it interesting when people chose to disagree with a professional legal opinion as opposed to matters of interpretation and demanded another one, although he acknowledged people had the right to do so. What was implicit in the discussion and of concern to him was the triangulation between the City Manager, attorney, and council, and the potential the attorney could become involved in what really was a MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 10 Work Session disagreement between the manager and council. He continued to hear in the conversation that the attorney was doing what the manager wanted him to do rather than what the council wanted him to do. If there was a disagreement or fundamental lack of trust between council as a body and the manager or individual councilors and the manager the council needed to deal with that one a one-on-one basis. He thought the attorney was rendering the best opinions he could based on the questions he was asked. City Manager Taylor suggested that direction by a council majority would give him direction to seek a second opinion. Mr. Clark believed that the issue was not what the attorney thought but what the courts thought and how good the attorney was at anticipating the court’s thoughts. He thought that could be easily tabulated with a look at the firm’s success rate in court. Mr. Klein said it was not merely a matter of tabulating success as the cases that went to court were generally more problematic in terms of who was right and wrong. He could not claim a 100 percent success rate. Ms. Bettman said the law was a question of interpretation or there would be no need for lawyers. One could construe a legal issue in many different ways, and in some cases it might behoove the council to look at all those ways as interpreted by reputable experts, including its own, and then make a decision that was best for the public. With regard to second opinions, Ms. Bettman suggested the council could direct the City Manager to seek a second opinion or could direct the manager to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and return with a list of qualified legal firms from which the council could request more than one second opinion. There were many ways the council could seek a second opinion. The council could bring second opinions into a discussion if there were precedents set through the League of Oregon Cities or other cities that had experienced similar litigation. Those were credible legal opinions that should be considered along with that of the City Attorney. She did not object to the recommended way of seeking a second opinion but it was not the only way. In addition, she thought that approach would take the City Manager and the politics out of the situation. Mr. Klein agreed that was not the only way, but he did disagree that the City Council could use an RFQ process. He said the Request for Proposals process mentioned by Ms. Bettman was different from hiring an attorney. Under public contracting law related to property and the urban renewal agency, the council had authority to select the developers. Under the charter, authority was given to the manager to select contractors and employees. He did not think the council could choose the attorney that provided a second opinion. Ms. Solomon had no objection to the discussion but was not hearing any agreement about how a second opinion should be sought. She thought such opinions should be sought by the entire council, and not by a select few councilors reading second opinions behind closed doors. She asked if other councilors interpreted the staff recommendation in the same way. Mayor Piercy suggested that was true of seeking a second opinion, but she interpreted Mr. Klein’s remarks as saying the council could get a second opinion but it would not have the standing of legal counsel. The council could get those opinions anytime it wanted and could decide whether to place credence in them based on their own individual analysis of the situation. Mr. Klein clarified that any councilor could go to his or her own lawyer or any lawyer for an opinion, which would be issued to the councilor but would not be paid for by the City. At that point, the opinion was a private document. Mayor Piercy concluded that individual councilors could seek such legal opinions and make them available to the council as part of the record. They would not be the official legal position of the council unless the council chooses to make them so. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Bettman acknowledged the charter prohibition on council interference with hiring City employees, but pointed out that Mr. Klein was not a City employee. She said that it was a contracting issue, and if the City Council could give the manager specific direction about the contractor to be selected as the downtown developer, it could direct him with regard to the City Attorney, because he was a contractor, not an employee. She did not think Mr. Klein had provided an accurate representation of the existing situation. Mr. Klein said the charter provision that prohibited the council from interfering with the manager in the hiring and firing of personnel was broader than just personnel. Ms. Bettman said that was true with regard to individual councilors, not the council as a body. Mr. Klein said that Section 16 of the charter granted the manger certain powers to do certain things, such as acting as business agent. The manager also has the power to choose the City’s contractors in most circumstances. He said he could provide more information if desired. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to Mr. Klein for his comments clarifying the role of the City Attorney. She believed it was important that the council be clear about what it did and did not support. That was the key to providing the manager with direction. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 12 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: April 9, 2007—Regular Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 5/7/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording Returned to Staff __ ____ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall April 9, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Bonny Bettman, and Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Kudos to Lynda Rose - Mayor Piercy announced that Council Coordinator Lynda Rose was stepping down. She commended Ms. Rose for her work and expressed sadness to see her go. Councilor Clark congratulated Ms. Rose on entering the next phase of her life and thanked her for her service to the City. Councilor Ortiz echoed the glowing comments about Ms. Rose. Recognition of Project HomelessConnect - Mayor Piercy thanked everyone who had worked to make the Project HomelessConnect a success. She acknowledged the hard work that brought the event to fruition. She specifically thanked Councilor Ortiz for making homelessness a council priority. She quoted from a report Councilor Ortiz made regarding the event. She thanked the City’s partners, Lane County, City of Springfield, and United Way of Lane County for making the idea a reality. She said as a follow-up to the event and at the behest of the councilors, she had created a Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. th Drix , 307½ East 14 Avenue, related that a couple of councilors helped to plant trees in his neighborhood and he appreciated it. He felt Eugene was a great town. He thought the citizens of Eugene were a great resource and, by working together, could come up with solutions for the problems Eugene sometimes faced, such as the two holes in downtown Eugene. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, # 336, noted that he had read in The Register-Guard about the possible plan for City Hall. He requested that the City leave the Park Blocks whole if the City ended up th constructing the City Hall on 7 Avenue and taking down the butterfly lot. Mr. Ivanoff believed that the City of Eugene could do a lot to help out future development of the city by devolving the street network. He asserted that the streets in the area bound by Chambers Street on the west, th the river on the north, Interstate 5 on the east, and 29 Avenue on the south should be reduced to two-lane streets. He felt that anyone who wanted to be here would find a way to get there. He asserted that if the City continued to stay on its current track and to conduct transportation planning as it currently was conducted, the City would have to convert the population signs at the edge of the City so that it reported the number of automobiles. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, expressed appreciation to the councilors who attended the discussion on the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) riverfront property. He suggested that the City include a Historic Preservation State of the City address on an annual basis. He thought this would help people to find out what might be “hit with a wrecking ball” and what would not. He noted that the oldest known house in Eugene was being nominated for the State Historic Registry. He thought that was an event worthy of a party. Mr. Vishanoff closed by reiterating his opposition to the University of Oregon’s plans to build a basketball arena. th George V. Stathakis , 935 West 8 Avenue, chair of the board of directors for the Wayne Morse Youth Program, reported that the Free Speech Courtyard had a “good Saturday” with “all kinds of people” in attendance. He encouraged the council to help them out. He recommended that someone contact Police Chief Bob Lehner and the City Manager because the situation with the police and with homeless people needed improvement. He felt the situation could use an “Officer Friendly” who was a presence every week and who could come to know who the real problem makers were. John Porter , 471 Covey Lane, urged the council to ask the School District 4J to return Civic Stadium to the City of Eugene. He had been shocked by the legal opinion that the original language of the agreement was non-binding. He recalled that citizens and businesses collaborated to build the stadium in the first place. He thought there would be an even greater need for the stadium for recreational purposes in the future. He was especially unhappy that the decision could not be appealed. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Mr. Porter stated, in response to Councilor Pryor, that he had given his testimony to the School District 4J. Councilor Bettman stated that the City Council did not make the decision to eliminate the opportunity to appeal. She averred that the decision had been made by the City Manager and the City Attorney. She expressed her unhappiness with this action. Councilor Clark thanked Mr. Porter. He conveyed his appreciation for the historic Civic Stadium. He also expressed appreciation for Drix’s testimony. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Ms. Taylor thanked Drix for giving the council things to think about. She liked Mr. Ivanoff’s idea of making the streets two-lane throughout the central area of the City. She noted that some streets were not under City jurisdiction. Ms. Taylor echoed Ms. Bettman’s sentiments regarding the legal decision made about Civic Stadium and the decision not to appeal. Mr. Zelenka thanked Drix for his testimony. He agreed with Mr. Porter that the School District 4J should return the Civic Stadium back to the City. He noted that the school district would have to undergo a long public process in order to sell it. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 24, 2007, Work Session - February 12, 2007, Work Session - February 14, 2007, Work Session - February 20, 2007, Work Session - February 21, 2007, Work Session - February 26, 2007, City Council Meeting - March 14, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of 2007-08 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program and American Dream Downpayment Initiative Programs Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Bettman indicated she had submitted minutes corrections via email and she also pulled Item C. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exceptions of Item C, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman asked what the approval of recommendations implied in terms of utilizing money for that purpose. She asked if it was just for housekeeping. Grants Manager for the Community Development Division, Linda Dawson, explained that because the document was for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program had to stay on the table. She affirmed that it was in a sense a housekeeping move for the HUD report. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item C, approval of 2007-08 funding allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program and American Dream Downpayment Initiative Programs, passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: Appointments to Civilian Review Board Police Auditor Cris Beamud said the number of members who would serve on the Citizen Review Board (CRB) had yet to be determined by the council. She stated that the council would also have to decide who would be on the CRB and what the term lengths would be. She reviewed the application and interview process for the CRB candidates. She believed the screening committee had been very diligent. She noted that in a preliminary poll, one candidate had garnered a clear majority of council support. Councilor Bettman thought the council should have addressed whether or not to interview applicants outside of recommendations of the screening committee. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to limit the appointments to within the nine nominees of the screening committee. Councilor Bettman averred that fairness was important and that the screening committee had conducted its process in a balanced and fair way. Councilor Ortiz indicated she would not support the motion. She said the nominees that had been set forth had met the criteria. Councilor Poling said he could not support the motion. He felt the criteria had been changed by the screening committee after the applications had been sent out. He thought the screening committee had taken it upon itself to change the criteria. He thought the changes made were an “insult” to the applicants that had applied prior to the changes. Councilor Pryor stated that he would not support the motion. Councilor Taylor said because she trusted the screening committee and it had spent a lot of time, she would limit her choices to the people set forth by the committee. Councilor Clark opposed the motion. He was concerned about the community’s need to have a perception of a lack of bias on the part of the screening committee. He noted that the Mayor’s Sustainable Business Initiative Task Force had found widespread community support because of the wide spectrum of people who served on that committee. Councilor Bettman asserted that the Police Commission and the enabling ordinance reinforced that the CRB should be objective and credible. She believed that the CRB should not be appointed with the idea of achieving political balance between a contingent of “anti-police” and “pro-police.” She opined that the screening committee had tried to screen these points of view out in order to gain an objective roster of candidates for the CRB. Roll call vote; the motion failed; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Councilor Solomon observed that the CRB was a new concept and the council was, in effect, “inventing the wheel.” She commented that the process of the screening committee had been disheartening and a disappointment. She thought it added a layer of bureaucracy to the CRB appointment process and had reduced the transparency. She remarked that of the four people who were “self-selected” to be on the screening committee, only one had been familiar to her. She thought the council should have conducted the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting screening process without a committee. She hoped that the council would consider changing the wording of the ordinance to eliminate Section C so that the council would function as the screening committee. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to establish five positions for the Ci- vilian Review Board. Councilor Bettman asked what the intent of having five members of the CRB was and how it would ultimately be expanded to seven. Ms. Beamud replied that she was not certain at this point. She said she intended to consult the Mayor and the councilors regarding this. She related that the City generally recruited and made selections to boards each October and she hoped to join in that effort. She felt that if it did not happen in October 2007, it would happen in October 2008. She wanted to increase the CRB members by two as soon as the board was running smoothly. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Ann Marie Lemire to Po- sition 1 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending Oc- tober 31, 2010. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Munir Katul to Position 2 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending October 31, 2010. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint John Norton Cabell to Po- sition 3 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending Oc- tober 31, 2009. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Richard Brissenden. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Zelenka, Bett- man, Taylor, and Ortiz voting in favor and councilors Clark, Solomon, Poling, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the motion passed as amended, 6:2; councilors Poling and Solomon voting in opposition. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Anita Kennedy to Position 4 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending October 31, 2009. Councilor Bettman said originally she had been supportive of Ms. Kennedy’s appointment. She related that she had listened to every interview over again and in that review she had heard Ms. Kennedy state that the police had the “final word.” She felt she had to rule her out as she interpreted this statement to mean Ms. Kennedy was pro-police. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Timothy Mueller. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Ortiz voting in favor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman moved to amend the motion to substitute Robert Richards. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Arnold Ismach. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion to substitute John Norton Cabell. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Taylor, Zelenka, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion to amend passed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed as amended, 5:3; councilors Zelenka, Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Kate Thompson to Posi- tion 5 on the Civilian Review Board for a term beginning April 10, 2007, and ending Octo- ber 31, 2009. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute John Brown. Councilor Bettman expressed her hope that the amendment would not pass. She opined that Mr. Brown was a “cheerleader of the Police Department.” She thought the community would perceive Mr. Brown’s appointment as biased. Councilor Clark averred that everyone who knew Mr. Brown’s volunteer efforts would more properly describe him as pro-public safety. He considered Mr. Brown to be the most qualified contender for a seat on the board. He asserted that in Mr. Brown’s absence the process would be a little too highly politicized. Councilor Ortiz said she admired Mr. Brown and considered him to be a diligent community member. She recognized that he gave freely of his time to the community. She could not, however, support his appoint- ment. She felt he was “too connected” to the process. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Pryor, Clark, and Solomon voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Taylor, Zelenka, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted against the amendment and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion to substi- tute Anita Kennedy. Councilor Solomon felt Ms. Kennedy was uniquely qualified in that she had put together a group within her industry regarding discrimination and racial issues. She said Ms. Kennedy had a demonstrated ability to set up a program and get it going. Councilor Bettman reiterated her opposition to Ms. Kennedy, though she felt her interview had been impressive. She said Ms. Kennedy employed two women who were married to police officers and had too positive of a view of the police. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Mayor Piercy affirmed that Ms. Kennedy had been one of the candidates put forward by the committee. Councilor Poling averred that the fact that Ms. Kennedy had contact with spouses of law enforcement officers should not be a disqualifier. He pointed out that the municipal court judge the council had appointed had frequent contact with police. Councilor Zelenka said both Ms. Kennedy and Ms. Thompson were qualified but he thought Ms. Thompson had a good background and would bring great skills to the position. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Clark, Solomon, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Zelenka, Ortiz, Taylor, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and the motion to amend failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 5:3; councilors Poling, Clark, and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy thanked all of the 39 applicants. She expressed appreciation for the “high caliber” of the applicants. Ms. Beamud felt the people of the community had stepped forward and the appointment of the CRB was a good step in establishing a transparent board. Councilor Zelenka thanked the steering committee. He believed that the establishment of the CRB was progress toward healing the community. Councilor Ortiz likened the process to a marathon that was just beginning. She wanted the City to give the perception that it was a safe place for all of the people to live and not just for some. Mayor Piercy said the CRB was charged with a “monumental task.” 5. ACTION: Resolution 4900 Amending Systems Development Charge Methodology for Parks System; Affirm- ing Systems Development Charge Methodologies Adopted by Resolutions Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883; and Repealing Resolution Nos. 4740, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, 4883. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4900 amending Systems Development Charge Methodology for parks system; affirming Sys- tems Development Charge Methodologies adopted by Resolutions Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883; and repealing Resolution Nos. 4740, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, 4883. City Manager Taylor stated that the resolution had been four years in the making. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka concurred with the methodology and the rationale for including the kindergarten through grade 12 educational institutions in the residential class of Systems Development Charges (SDCs). It had struck him as odd that it would not include all educational institutions in that class. Councilor Zelenka moved to amend the note underneath Table 19 in the Methodology, per- taining to Non-Residential Systems Development Charge classes for the Parks Systems De- velopment Charges, to read as follows: “Note that, on the basis of the park user survey results educational institutions are not included in non-residential classes , as users associated with educational institution are gen- erally attributable to residential land uses, and related demand is accounted for in residential development categories.” The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Clark shared his concern that this would add a burden to those who would begin a sustainable business in the city of Eugene. He felt the resolution would put people in a position wherein it would be more advantageous to do business in Springfield. Councilor Bettman did not consider the addition of Systems Development Charges (SDCs) to be adding yet another burden to development. She averred that the costs to add new development were there regardless of who paid for them. She said the SDC methodology just determined who paid for it instead of shifting the burden of that new development onto taxpayers and residents. She asserted that people often paid for growth with diminished services and a diminished ability to pay for infrastructure. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the resolution to delete non-residential Systems Development Charge formulas. Councilor Solomon was not able to see a nexus for the formulas. She noted that the reasons people were for or against the non-residential charge listed in the agenda packet suggested that the additional population of employees, customers, and visitors and the associated increase in the population of park users increased the demands for park capacity. She disagreed with this assertion. She said when she went to Cottage Grove or Springfield it was not to go to the park. She thought a person might come to Eugene to attend a specific festival at one of the parks, but this did not correlate to an increase in park usage by people who were in Eugene for other reasons. Councilor Clark agreed with Councilor Solomon. He observed that the City asked people to come and enjoy the parks. He did not see it as an issue of business. Councilor Zelenka opposed the amendment. He believed there was a nexus between non-residential employees and customers and park usage. He averred that the increase in park usage had been documented in a survey which had indicated that 16 percent of the park users were non-residents. Councilor Pryor supported the amendment. He thought the original intent of SDCs was to provide parks in order to accommodate new residential growth and not to bring businesses into that mix. Councilor Bettman expressed her opposition. She felt staff had adequately documented the nexus of park usage and non-residents. She said the costs of providing capacity to new development was constant and everyone should pay a fair share. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark had been struck by a fault in the methodology of the survey in that people were interviewed as they were coming or going through the park without adequately ascertaining whether the people were using the park or passing through it in transit from work to home, as an example. Councilor Taylor asserted that businesses thrived from having parks nearby. She believed that the City of Eugene attracted people for the jobs and for its amenities. She said she was sure that people who came to Eugene for business also did things like swimming, hiking, or picnicking while here. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Solomon, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the amendment and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion was a tie, 4:4; councilors Bettman, Taylor, Ze- lenka, and Ortiz voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor, and Clark voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. 6. ACTION: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 13, 2007, February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 22, 2007, and Direction on Legislative Policy Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Rela- tions Committee actions as set forth in the minutes of the February 13, 2007, February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, and March 16, 2007, meetings. Councilor Pryor stated that the bills that had been pulled for council discussion were House Bill (HB) 2134, Senate Bill (SB) 250, HB 2370, and HB 2370-A. He was primarily concerned with the house bills and indicated he would defer to Councilor Taylor if she wished to discuss SB 250 at the council level. Councilor Taylor said she did not wish to discuss SB 250. Roll call vote; the motion to ratify the Intergovernmental Relations Committee actions on all bills except for HB 2134, HB 2370, and HB 2370-A passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pryor explained that HB 2134 had to do with expanding permissible basis for interceptions of wire, electronic, and oral communication. He said it also limited the grounds for suppression of intercepted communications and was related to the interception of communications. He related that Policy Analyst for the Eugene Police Department (EPD) Ellwood Cushman recommended a Priority 2 Support on the bill and the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had, by a 2:1 vote, changed the position to Oppose. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson reported that Councilor Bettman had been concerned that the expanded authority given to public safety officers would allow them to act as the judge in the cases of personal search warrants or at the time that the interception would take place. She noted that the bill had only one public hearing thus far. She said this point had been raised by several parties including the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She stated that there would be another public hearing scheduled and she expected to see amendments before then. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman wanted to keep the CCIGR position of Priority 3 Oppose. She felt this was more likely to influence the process. Councilor Solomon thought opposition to the bill was premature. She was willing to support the bill until the amendments were available for review. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Support stance on HB 2134. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Solo- mon, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition to the amendment and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy indicated she would support changing the stance to Monitor. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to change the stance on HB 2134 to Monitor. Councilor Bettman indicated she would oppose the motion. She thought monitoring the bill would preempt any opportunity the City would have to influence the bill. Councilor Poling averred that if the defense lawyers and the ACLU were working on it, the City of Eugene would have little influence on the outcome. Councilor Pryor supported a Monitor stance as it would allow the City’s lobbying resources to be spent on other bills that needed attention. He added that he did not believe the bill would compromise civil liberties to the extent that some people might worry it would. Councilor Zelenka asked Mayor Piercy to explain her position. Mayor Piercy understood the bill to be limited to crimes involving death, serious injury, and sexual assault specifically. She believed the people who were reviewing it were trying to tighten it up in order to preserve the rights of people involved. Ms. Wilson said the bill had been introduced on behalf of the Attorney General and sought to provide officers the ability to intercept communications where a threat of immediate serious bodily injury or sexual assault was involved. She related that because the CCIGR voted to oppose the bill she had already relayed that position to the ACLU. She stated that the Attorney General indicated a willingness to work to find a middle ground. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Solomon, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Pryor stated that HB 2370 was the “short version.” He related that the Governor requested that emergency operation functions be moved from the oversight of the Oregon State Police to the National Guard. He explained that HB 2370-A included an amendment that prohibited a unit of government from seizing firearms from individuals during a declared emergency. He noted that at times certain civil rights were suspended in an emergency. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Ms. Wilson said in regard to the legislative process, the amendment had “come suddenly” in a work session. She stated that the bill was in the Ways and Means Committee and had not been scheduled for a hearing at this point. Emergency Program Manager Chuck Solin said originally he was in support of the bill. He noted that the Governor had already transferred the administration of Oregon emergency management to the National Guard of Oregon. He explained that the Governor was just moving a department that at one time reported directly to his office and had been moved under the auspices of the Oregon State Police to the Oregon military department. He related that a couple of people on the committee had concerns regarding firearms that had been seized in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; apparently the owners of the firearms were required to pay to retrieve them, sometimes more than the firearms were worth. He stated that in the City of Eugene there was an emergency code that gave city officers in very specific circumstances related to a true emergency the right to put price regulation in place, to establish curfews, order evacuations, and prohibit the sale, carrying, or possession of firearms or explosives of any kind on public streets. He said HB 2370-A dictated that if a person had a legal right to carry a firearm, no one could take it and if the firearm was confiscated all of the costs to recover the weapon would have to be borne by the City. Councilor Bettman thought the bill was more complicated than that. She had opposed the amendment, but she had larger concerns about the bill itself. She believed that the National Guard was the national military. She asserted that the bill would give all of the duties and powers of emergency management to the office of Homeland Security. She believed this would give all of the resources and equipment to make the decisions to the military. She averred this was a major policy issue. Ms. Wilson reported that there was strong backing for the bill and there had been no discussion of the amendment in the joint committee on emergency preparedness. She said the discussion would have to take place in the Ways and Means Committee or on the legislature floor. She suggested that the council might want to take a support-if-amended or oppose-unless-amended stance. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose stance on HB 2370. Councilor Poling was reluctant to take a position because he could see both the pros and the cons of HB 2370-A. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Solin affirmed that emergency professionals supported the bill. He had talked to a number of staff in the Oregon Emergency Management and they were very supportive of this move. He underscored that they would all remain civilian employees, but they would be under the department of the military. He stated that Oregon was in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region 10, which included Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana. Oregon was currently the only state that did not have its emergency management function under the military in the region. Councilor Solomon did not have an objection to putting the functions of emergency management under the military. She felt that if the professionals who work in this field supported the bill then she should not oppose it given that they had a great deal more knowledge about it than she did. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Wilson explained that the supporters of the bill believed that the Oregon military department had more resources in training, planning, and in its budget. She said if a disaster was more than statewide, Oregon’s ability to work with the other offices of emergency MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting management in the rest of the region would be better served if all of it was under the same department and all “spoke the same language.” She noted that the ACLU had testified neutral on the original bill (no one had testified regarding the amendment). Councilor Pryor averred that HB 2370 was a good bill as it would provide the coordination Oregon would need should there be a major emergency. He said he did not have an inherent fear of the military that would cause him to be nervous if the military became involved in an emergency. He noted that one of the failures in Katrina was in the incident command system because control was spread out over a number of organiza- tions and no one had a clear sense of who was in control. He related that it was used by incident command instructors as an example of how not using that system created a disaster. He stated that the military was integral to emergency management because it had the trucks, planes, resources, and people to provide the help that the victims of a disaster needed. Councilor Poling said he would support the bill. He thought it was the right step to take. Councilor Bettman commented that it was “ironic” to use what happened in response to Hurricane Katrina as a justification to turn Oregon’s emergency response over to the federal government. She thought the bill would transfer Oregon’s resources to the federal government. Ms. Wilson assured Councilor Bettman that the budget for the emergency response department would be transferred to the Oregon Military Department and would be funded like any other State agency. She said it would be a department within a State agency and not part of the federal government. She underscored that the money would not go to FEMA to fund the program. Councilor Bettman responded that it did not say FEMA, rather it indicated that it would be through the Office of Homeland Security. Ms. Wilson clarified that it was the Office of Homeland Security for the State of Oregon, which was a State department. Councilor Bettman asked if it would impact the Oregon State Police budget. Ms. Wilson replied that the budget would be transferred to the Oregon Military Department because it was believed that in case of emergency, the Oregon Military Department had more resources to respond to a statewide or region-wide emergency. Councilor Bettman asked if the Oregon State Police would be held harmless in terms of resources. Ms. Wilson affirmed that it would. Councilor Bettman asked if the federal government was bringing resources to the table and if the State of Oregon was “just handing the authority and resources to them.” Ms. Wilson reiterated that no authority was going to the federal government; the Oregon Office of Homeland Security was a State-level department in and of itself. Councilor Bettman asserted that the Oregon Military Department answered to the federal government. Ms. Wilson assured her that the department answered to the Governor of Oregon. Councilor Bettman opined that it was important to monitor the bill and not to support it because she believed that the bill would militarize Oregon’s response to a disaster. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 12 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Solin stated that the amendment in HB 2370-A did not talk about commercial businesses that have stores of firearms but under the jurisdiction of Eugene City Code, the City had the ability to curtail sales in an emergency. Councilor Poling brought a point of order. He determined that the motion the council had voted on had been misunderstood to be a motion regarding the staff position and not Councilor Bettman’s motion to take a Priority 3 Oppose stance on HB 2370. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to rescind the vote. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose stance on HB 2370. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in favor. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on HB 2370. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Tay- lor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy stated that the staff recommendation for HB 2370-A was to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. Councilor Clark expressed concern that HB 2370-A would impact civil liberties. He believed the right to bear arms was an individual civilian right. He supported the amended version of the bill. Councilor Poling understood the local emergency management procedure but he expressed concern about people in rural areas. He thought some people would not see help for days and he did not think people in that position should have their weapons seized. He opposed the staff recommendation. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson clarified that the amended version of the bill would preempt the Eugene City Code provisions related to disaster management and firearms. She noted that it would prohibit the federal government from seizing weapons as well. She believed this to be a violation of the United States Constitution Supremacy Clause. She thought the bill would be “hashed out” once it reached the floor. Councilor Solomon felt a gun was necessary in certain crisis situations to ensure the safety of her family and because of this she could not support the staff recommendation to oppose the amended bill. Councilor Pryor found the amendment to be troublesome because it did not provide any way of differentiat- ing between a good person or a person with ill intent carrying a gun. He said unless the amendment could be clearer he could not support it. Councilor Bettman found both the bill and the amendment to be troublesome. She thought the amendment would allow “the military” to go door to door confiscating weapons. She did not like that it would supercede home rule authority and the ability of the EPD to impose law and order. She added that this was her difficulty with turning over emergency management “to the military.” She hoped the council would reconsider its vote to support “militarizing emergency management.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka noted that the local ordinance did not allow authorities to go into homes and take guns. Mr. Solin affirmed this. He said specifically under emergency circumstances the City could prohibit the sale, the carrying, or the possession of any firearms or explosives of any kind on public streets or in public places. He recalled that when the City passed the emergency code the National Rifle Association had made comments on a national level about the City of Eugene. He said the City had been careful to craft the language so that it was specific to the confiscation of firearms in public places only. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Pryor that the amendment could prohibit local officials from taking guns away from vigilantes in such a situation. Councilor Poling did not agree with the assertion that someone who was breaking the law could not have their gun confiscated. Mr. Solin replied that the police had reviewed the amendment and it had given them concern because it specifically stated that if a person lawfully possessed the firearm it could not be taken away from that individual. He related that the EPD felt the law had the potential to tie the hands of officers in such a situation. Councilor Clark suggested that someone who was shooting inappropriately would still be subject to arrest. He believed that the greatest degree of home rule was the “primacy of the individual.” He thought this was a “wonderful balance” to the need to “federalize” this particular response. At Councilor Bettman’s request, Mr. Solin rearticulated Mr. Cushman’s concerns with the language of the amendment. He stated that the way that it was written it could potentially disallow an officer from taking a firearm from someone who lawfully owned it, even if that person was doing something illegal. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Wilson predicted that there would be a discussion regarding the State’s right to prohibit the federal government from seizing arms in an emergency. She noted that there were a lot of emergency-related bills at present. She said one of the big discussions was what a state of emergency actually meant, as it was not entirely clear and it was not in the bill. Councilor Bettman asked if there were any other issues of authority that the underlying bill would impact. Mr. Solin responded that the Oregon Wireless Interoperable Network (OWIN) was a program that sought to try to fix the State’s radio systems and the Oregon Military Department did not want the program. He said OWIN was “looking for a new home.” He related that staff was closely watching where OWIN would end up because of local interest in interoperability. He also noted that from an emergency management standpoint, although the Oregon State Police had been diminished by budget cuts, the National Guard’s ability to respond to emergencies had also been diminished because so many of the troops had been sent overseas. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Solin related that Oregon National Guard troops had been sent to help Hurricane Katrina victims, as an example of Oregon troops helping people in another state. Councilor Bettman asked who would make the decision to send troops to another state. She asked what would happen in a situation in which there was an emergency that hit another state harder than Oregon. Would “whoever it is that was now administering the emergency management by the military” send troops to another state? Mr. Solin replied that the Oregon National Guard reported to the Governor of Oregon. He explained that after Hurricane Katrina the Governor of Louisiana asked the Governor of Oregon to send troops to help out and the Governor then decided to dispatch some troops. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark moved to adopt a Priority 1 Monitor position on HB 2370-A. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position on HB 2370-A. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting in opposition. Councilor Pryor commended Ms. Wilson and her staff for their hard work in Salem. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 15 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council Workshop DATE OF MEETING: April 16, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/23 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 5/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/21 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Workshop Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon April 16, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORKSHOP: Downtown Development City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Alexis Garret, Chair of the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) and Gerry Gaydos, Chair of Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI), who would be facilitating the panel discussion by development professionals. Panelists included Hugh Prichard, Tom Bowerman, Steve Korth, Jean Tate, Greg McLaughlan, and Jerry Diethelm. Mr. Gaydos said the panelists had been selected to provide a range of perspectives on development, how to achieve a vibrant downtown, and the use of private/public partnerships. He said the workshop was an opportunity to be curious, establish a framework for thinking about the future of downtown, and begin a community dialogue on possibilities. Ms. Garret said that each speaker would have ten minutes to make a presentation, followed by a five-minute question and answer period with the council. She said all presentations would be followed by an opportunity for additional questions and answers. Mr. McLaughlan discussed three points: the purpose of downtown and what it meant to the community; the role of the public sector in revitalization of downtown; and observations and ideas about current opportuni- ties for downtown revitalization. He said that a more diverse, active, and economically dynamic downtown would benefit Eugene as a whole because it was an important step in creating a sustainable, livable city. He said the role of the public sector and public investment in downtown, including subsidies, should be based on the public good derived from that investment. He said no city had achieved a successful, vital downtown core without a significant public investment. He said ensuring the benefit of public investments was based on accountability, transparency, diversity of people and uses and sustainability. He said fairness in dealing with existing businesses and activities was also important. Mr. Zelenka asked how features that made downtown Eugene unique could be preserved and a monoculture approach that made downtown look like any other city avoided. Mr. McLaughlan replied that a major redevelopment effort needed to look and feel as if it was of, by and for Eugene. He said that would only MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 1 Workshop happen with strong local participation by elected officials, the public, and communities that lived and worked downtown. Mr. Zelenka asked whether an incremental or critical mass development approach was preferable. Mr. McLaughlan cautioned against a debate on the issue of scale instead of the content of the development itself. He felt a larger scale project could be sensitive to local needs, as could an incremental approach. Ms. Bettman noted that scale was not the only issue; diversity was also critical and one of the proposals would consolidate ownerships. She questioned how diversity could be achieved if there was a monopoly on ownership of downtown property. Mr. McLaughlan replied that even with a single developer, key community goals such as diversity could be leveraged if there was a significant public investment in the project. Mr. Prichard said he had been involved in many development projects in Eugene and discussed the financial imperatives that all projects had to follow. He said that projects needed to meet the same financial requirements, regardless of their nature and those requirements were stringent. He explained how projects developed a construction budget and operating budget; the built value of the project must not be lower than the construction cost or financing would not be available. He distributed a handout titled PPPM 407/507 Real Estate Development - Prichard that described redevelopment costs and financing. He said that for some projects, a gap between construction costs and built value could be filled through various funding sources, depending on project eligibility and that generally required assistance from local government. He encouraged creative public/private partnerships to bridge gaps. Mr. Zelenka asked why it was more expensive to develop in the urban core than outside of it. Mr. Prichard said a number of factors contributed to the higher cost of downtown development and those were detailed in his handout. He said lack of development experience and expertise in Eugene and the challenges of building in a higher density environment were some of the factors. Mr. Zelenka repeated his question regarding a preference for incremental or critical mass development. Mr. Prichard noted that incremental development had been occurring and either approach could work, depending on the situation. Mr. Bowerman remarked that from his perspective money was not the most important factor in development and there were other things that might motivate a developer. He said it was important that jurisdictions recognize that. He believed in the social purpose of development and described his experience with a project in downtown that preserved unique old buildings while creating economic vitality. He said the role of the City was to have good goals that provided a statement of community objectives, development codes, and a permitting process that encouraged redevelopment and economic development financial assistance. He emphasized the need for policies and strategies to be applied uniformly and in a focused manner. He felt that civic vitality occurred with broad participation and liked the idea of diverse ownership and owner/managers who worked closely with tenants to assure compatibility and longevity. He preferred to work with incremental development rather than large projects. Ms. Bettman opined that it was difficult for a developer to address the entire footprint in the City's request for proposals and asked what criteria might be included that would encourage a wider range of developers to respond. Mr. Bowerman said it would be difficult to respond to that question on the spur of the moment and he would get back to Ms. Bettman with his thoughts on the subject. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 2 Workshop Mr. Zelenka asked how the unique nature of downtown could be preserved and enhanced. Mr. Bowerman said he did not think the goal should necessarily be about uniqueness; most west coast cities had many common qualities and individual characteristics came about by responding to the local environment. Mr. Korth offered his perspective on the fundamentals of development, using the Oakway Center as an example. He said that any redevelopment project needed to consider some basic issues, including creating a master plan for the project regardless of whether the development was incremental or critical mass. He said that ownership of contiguous properties was a significant factor as adjacent properties and neighbors were important to retailers. He said that establishing a timeline was also essential. He indicated that the regional mall model had worked well for the Oakway Center and resulted in a vision that guided overall development. He agreed with earlier comments about the importance of a project's economics; the rent structure had to support the project but be tempered by what tenants could afford. In response to a request from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Korth said the Center Courtyard and heritage tree features of the Oakway Center were intended to establish a connection to the community through preserving its historical significance and creating a pleasant environment for the public. Ms. Bettman asked if any subsidies had been involved in development of the mall. Mr. Korth said that no subsidized were used although some system development charges (SDC) credits were used in the develop- ment of property across Coburg Road from Oakway Center. Mr. Diethelm distributed to the council a memorandum dated April 16, 2007, on the subject of downtown project evaluation. He said his bias was toward encouraging downtown development and that public investments would be involved in order to further the City's goals. He was familiar with the sites identified for redevelopment and discussed some of his previous experience with developing overall public urban design frameworks for projects. He said the difference between those projects and the ones being considered by the council was that they began with urban design plans that set forth details of what the jurisdiction was trying to accomplish and developers were asked to show how they could fit into that framework of community expectations. He contrasted that with simply asking developers what they would like to do. He used the example of a project in which the owners refused to sell the property for redevelopment until there was an urban design plan with broad community agreement. He said that the downtown development proposals were premature and urged development of urban design plans for both sites to measure proposals against. He also encouraged the inclusion of more public space in any development project. He noted that critical mass might not happen all at once. Ms. Bettman appreciated Mr. Diethelm's point that critical mass could be achieved incrementally. She asked what disadvantages large development had. Mr. Diethelm said an advantage of large-scale develop- ment could be building infrastructure all at once instead of piecemeal, but a disadvantage was that large developers did not always do what a city wanted. Ms. Tate said her development experience was with smaller scale projects such as the L & L Market and Woodleaf Village. She said that in one case the financing gap was filled from a number of sources, including affordable housing tax credits. She said a subsidy was essential to building a project that people could afford. She said the condominiums she recently developed at 14th Avenue and Lincoln Street had a cost of almost $300 a square foot and the City's requirement for a mix of commercial and residential had made it challenging to build the project. She noted that other projects had problems filling their commercial space and she would not have embarked on the condominium project without a commitment from a tenant for two of the three spaces. She urged the council to rethink the requirement for retail and office space. She expressed concern about incremental development and felt that critical mass was necessary to attract people MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 3 Workshop to downtown. She said the City should also take into consideration the challenges developers faced in obtaining financing for projects. She commented that the escalating costs of construction meant that if her project had been started six months later it could not have been built. Mr. Zelenka asked if the condominiums had any public investment. Ms. Tate replied that the only public investment was the multi-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) and without that exemption it would have been much more difficult to sell units. Ms. Bettman questioned why downtown property was more expensive and had higher value when the downtown area was identified as depressed. Ms. Tate replied that property value included the structure as well as the land and most developers would demolish an existing building to build a new one, making it more costly to develop in downtown. Mr. Gaydos thanked the panelists for their presentations and opened the question and answer period. Replying to Ms. Bettman's question, Mr. Prichard said a factor in the cost of downtown property was parking. He gave the example of a higher return on a parcel when it was parking than after a building was constructed, making parking the highest and best use of property downtown. Ms. Bettman asked if the downtown and urban renewal plans were sufficient to meet the need to guide overall development. Mr. Diethelm said development of the train station area involved developing what was in essence a small refinement plan that had community involvement and support. Mr. Korth said a plan could evolve in many ways but whatever the project, it should be well thought out in advance. He said there needed to be some decisions about the vision or direction to guide the project. He said it was difficult to proceed with a project when there were too many different perspectives involved. Mr. Diethelm said the downtown plan was general and did not provide much guidance on things that would be important in developing the area. Mr. Bowerman commented that the development code was like a master plan and was so specific it almost functioned as a template. He said many developers were interested in a performance pathway in the code to allow flexibility in meeting the City's goals. He said that performance pathways had been successful in other cities in encouraging vibrant community development. Mr. Clark observed that demand-driven development was a successful model and asked what there was in terms of demand for downtown. Mr. Diethelm replied that there needed to be a reconception of what downtown would become. He did not think that was a retail center; the goal should to target a downtown residential population of 5-6,000 people and that would carry with it a demand for certain goods and services. Mr. Prichard said based on an evaluation of the costs of redevelopment, he concluded that retail, office and market-rate housing were not currently feasible; what would work was affordable housing and condomini- ums. Mr. Bowerman believed that critical mass was necessary and it had been demonstrated frequently that a dense urban experience was attractive to a segment of the population. He said downtown Eugene, having reached a critical mass, would be a highly desirable place to visit and live in but that had to be done correctly. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 4 Workshop Mr. McLaughlan said there was demand for a downtown that was an entertainment and cultural center, a center for government services, special retail, nonprofits and a diverse environment. He said in many respects creating diversity created its own demand. Ms. Tate said there was room downtown for more law offices close to the courthouse, more space for the insurance industry, specialty retail, and restaurants. She said the location of government offices downtown was also very important, but was concerned about who would build and pay for what was necessary to achieve critical mass without a master plan. Mr. Gaydos agreed with Mr. McLaughlan's comments as it would be difficult to anticipate future demands; it was important to celebrate the diversity that existed and create greater diversity. He encouraged the creation of public/private partnerships to foster revitalization of downtown and urged that those efforts move forward soon. Ms. Taylor liked the Oakway Center but did not want it downtown. She agreed with Ms. Tate's comments about the difficulty of filling commercial space. She emphasized the need to protect existing businesses, which contributed to a vibrant life downtown at night. She asked how those businesses could be protected and also whether it was appropriate for the City to buy property downtown and then work with potential developers. Mr. Bowerman agreed it was critical to protect current businesses. He said the concept of a single developer should incorporate a component to include current businesses in the finished product so they had equity and ownership. He thought the City could form a partnership with a developer to establish those standards. Mr. Diethelm cautioned against large-scale projects that made it impossible for small businesses to stay in downtown. He suggested the City could buy some key properties to break up an ownership monopoly and demonstrate the effectiveness of a public/private partnership. Mr. Prichard also encouraged establishing a performance pathway. He said both Salem and Corvallis had good examples. Mr. Zelenka said the council had to address the difficult question of how much public investment was appropriate on a particular project. He said some people in the community wanted no public investment and others wanted a project done, regardless of the amount of public investment. He asked if there was a sense of what the balance for public investment might be. Ms. Tate said the City should ask developers who were willing to undertake a project what they would require in terms of public investment and then choose among those projects. She did not think the City could superimpose its preferences on a developer. Mr. Korth encouraged a financial analysis to demonstrate the benefit to the community of any public investment, regardless of the size of the investment. Ms. Tate pointed out that the property on which Tate Condominiums was built was previously owned by the City and was now part of the tax base. Mr. Zelenka asked whether it was better to establish a relationship with one developer or have several developers involved in downtown. Ms. Tate felt it was preferable for the City to try to work out a project MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 5 Workshop that meet everyone's needs with one developer, as developers generally preferred not to be involved in a project that would include other developers. Mr. Diethelm said that initial projects would "prime the pump" and the City might expect to make a greater public investment in them than in subsequent projects. He felt there were benefits to incremental develop- ment through increased values from earlier projects. He said that a plan would provide a framework and guidance for developers, not impose directives. Mr. McLaughlan encouraged thinking creatively about investments that served more than one objective, business or organization. He used the pocket park as an example of a public investment that could enhance the value and feasibility of a development and become a magnet for public gatherings. He said parking was also a source of public investment but parking or any other transportation system investment should serve existing businesses as well as new construction. Mr. Bowerman was concerned about the inflated impression some downtown owners had of the value of their property. He said paying over-market value for a property would trigger expectations that persisted. He felt that real estate investment should be opportunity-driven and cautioned about a jurisdiction inflating values because it was willing to invest in property for social purposes. Mayor Piercy commented that critical mass development could be done incrementally and incremental development could be part of a larger project. She said a developer was a tool to achieve a specific purpose and might not be the ultimate owner of the property. She said there was agreement on the need for critical mass. Ms. Ortiz thanked the panelists and hoped that the discussion clarified some of the issues involved in selecting a developer. Her concern related to what the council would be asking the public to support. Ms. Bettman said she defined critical mass in terms of people and wondered how others defined that term. She agreed with comments that the council should define in a refinement plan what the community and council wanted and then issue an RFP for developers to propose how they could meet those needs. She said there was criticism of the size of public investment in the larger proposal and asked for feedback from panelists on that issue. She also asked for feedback on how to determine how much commercial activity was appropriate and sustainable based on residential density. Mr. Gaydos discouraged discussion of proposal details as those were not yet widely known, but the other issues raised by Ms. Bettman could be addressed. Mr. Bowerman said that it was difficult to define critical mass; it was easier to recognize it when it was achieved. Regarding over-commercialization, he felt it was important to have architectural design and development that provided great opportunity for future adaptability and then allow spaces and activities to dictate the uses. Mr. Diethelm said the amount of commercial use in a nodal development was about 10 percent; downtown was also a regional center and would attract people from throughout the community and would have a higher percentage of commercial uses, although not to the extent of a shopping center. He used the defunct Oregon Research Institute project as an example of development that would have brought many younger workers to the downtown area and perhaps given them an incentive to purchase a home in downtown. He said that providing a subsidy for that project might have been a worthwhile investment in order to achieve residential goals. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 6 Workshop Mr. Korth said that critical mass involved creating sufficient appeal to provide the best chance of achieving goals. He determined the appropriate level of commercialization by considering factors such as vacancy rates and market trends. Ms. Tate urged flexibility in type and use of space in development projects. Mr. Pryor felt that critical mass was when enough elements were brought together to be self-sustaining and no longer require a subsidy. He said the question was what combination of elements was necessary to achieve critical mass in downtown revitalization. Mr. Prichard remarked that Eugene was the only government, office and financial center outside of Portland and, except for the two blocks in question, there was already significant critical mass, which was a great asset to revitalization efforts. Mr. Poling thanked the panelists for their presentations. Ms. Solomon acknowledged the need for thoughtful discussion, but hoped the City would move forward with downtown redevelopment in a timely manner. Mr. Clark asked about the importance of predictability and political commitment to the achievement of critical mass and how the City would facilitate that. Mr. McLaughlan referred to a large community visioning process conducted in 1997-98 that addressed public policies and investments. He said that 67 percent of respondents were in favor of public investment and incentives were important for things like locating environmentally sensitive businesses in Eugene, building affordable housing and increasing density in development patterns. He asked the council to keep in mind that the community was supportive of its efforts. Ms. Tate recognized the amount of time and energy that councilors gave on behalf of the public. Ms. Bettman thought there had been considerable progress and broad agreement on the appropriateness of subsidies for downtown development. She said the issue was how to go about redevelopment to achieve the best cost benefit for the public. Mr. Zelenka thanked the panelists for helping to better inform the council and educate the public about downtown redevelopment issues. He said his request for a process on downtown development included the panel discussion with people knowledgeable about development. He said other elements of his request were establishing a timeline to assure timely action on options, a financial analysis of the extent and benefit of public and private investments, what type of public investments should be involved and how to educate and involve the public in the process in a meaningful way. Mayor Piercy said the challenge was to determine when it was appropriate to involve the public in the process. She thanked the panelists and councilors for participating in the workshop. She said it would be helpful to see an analysis of the entire downtown that identified what was working well, what could be improved and the extent of any problems. She said the current focus was on a small portion of downtown and the discussion should consider the larger context of downtown. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 7 Workshop City Manager Taylor said he was working with the mayor and staff to address the other elements of Mr. Zelenka's request. He said the council would have an opportunity on April 25 to focus on a document that described the financial tools that were available for development as well as review the details of proposals. He said information on various timelines issues, such as expiration of options, would also be provided. He said meetings were also scheduled for May 9 and May 14 to discuss process details and make decisions about how to proceed. Ms. Bettman asked if staff would request action or seek direction at the April 25 meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that the council could choose to select a qualified proposal and the timeline information would help inform the council about when actions needed to occur. He had not yet seen proposal details and did not know if he would be making a specific recommendation. Ms. Bettman felt that taking action on April 25 would be premature and not allow for adequate public involvement. City Manager Taylor reiterated that timeline information would help the council determine what actions were required at points in the process. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 16, 2007 Page 8 Workshop