HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes
Meeting Date: June 25, 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 April 25, 2007, Work Session, May 9, 2007, Work Session, and
May 16, 2007, Work Session.
ATTACHMENTS
A.April 25, 2007, Work Session
B.May 9, 2007, Work Session
C.May 16, 2007, Work Session
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\M070625\S0706252A.DOC
ATTACHMENT A
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council Work Session and
Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
April 25, 2007
Noon
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.
Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Ortiz for a motion unrelated to the agenda.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to authorize the expenditure of not more than
$5,000 to sponsor a half-day seminar on how the City Council and City organization can
create multicultural alliances, with the funding coming from a General Fund contingency.
Acting City Manager Angel Jones indicated the proposed expenditure was consistent with the council’s goal
on race and the funding was available.
Mr. Clark noted recent discussion at the Human Rights Commission about the training, and said great
excitement was expressed by the commission about the possibility.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0, Ms. Solomon having not yet arrived.
A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Development Finance Tools
Mayor Piercy noted a motion was included in the materials before the council, but she suggested it was
premature and that the council use the meeting for discussion and then decide on next steps.
Acting City Manager Jones introduced the item, reminding the council of the meetings that had occurred
with regard to the West Broadway development area. She said staff prepared a motion but did not
anticipate action.
Acting City Manager Jones called the council’s attention to a flier provided at councilors’ places regarding a
public input opportunity on the West Broadway development proposals on April 30, 2007, at 6 p.m. at the
Bascom-Tykeson Room at the Eugene Library.
Ms. Solomon arrived.
Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge provided a PowerPoint presentation on Downtown Develop-
ment Financial Tools. She concluded that the City had the financial capacity to take on a significant
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
development project within existing resources with a low level of risk using financial risk mitigation
measures, such as relying on existing revenues to structure the debt, including reserves and revenue
cushions. Based on preliminary information from the developers, staff believed it could build a finance plan
that included capacity for future projects without completely “tapping out” the district. The financial benefit
to the community would be directly related to the scale of the project. She invited questions.
Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions.
Ms. Bettman commended the materials provided as informative.
Ms. Bettman said she thought the council should avoid using General Fund money for the project given the
dire budget picture. She determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that the library bond would be paid off in 2009
and asked if the capacity going into the library now would become available. Ms. Cutsogeorge said no; it
went away.
Ms. Bettman believed that staff had scheduled a work session to discuss an increase in the spending limit,
and the materials seemed to be weighted toward increasing the limit as opposed to making an investment
within the City’s current spending capacity. Ms. Cutsogeorge said when the council chose the developer
that decision would be inherent in the choice it made. If it chose the larger project, it would require an
Urban Renewal Plan amendment.
Ms. Bettman asked how the demolition of buildings affected the tax base and the baseline revenue being
generated now. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the revenue was not assessed on individual properties so the General
Fund would not be affected by property demolition; it was likely that urban renewal revenues would go
down somewhat. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum on the topic.
Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that urban renewal revenues could be used on anything in
the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan.
Mr. Zelenka complimented staff on the quality of materials provided to the council. He said he would like to
see the school district benefit somehow. Regarding the information provided on financial risks, he asked that
a memorandum fleshing out those risks be provided to the council.
Mr. Zelenka asked what rules existed with regard to when and how the benefit of the tax increment could be
shared with the General Fund. He asked if there was a way to direct some of the tax increment revenue to
the General Fund. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan did not include any provisions
for revenue sharing. She pointed out that the City was able to complete some projects using urban renewal
funds that it would have otherwise had to fund from other sources, which provided some ancillary relief to
the General Fund. Ms. Cutsogeorge noted that if the revenues available to the district were diverted to other
uses, the result would be fewer revenues for projects in the district.
City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated he would answer Mr. Zelenka’s questions in writing.
Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Klein said the State rules were that the tax increment dollars
must be spent either within the district or, in limited circumstances, just outside the district if the project was
to directly benefit the district. He cited a traffic signal that provided access to a district but was located just
outside the district as an example. He indicated he would provide a written answer.
Mr. Clark asked if the City had latitude in what it called urban renewal. Mr. Klein said there was latitude
but it was not without limits.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for its work. She was happy to see the public input process being planned because
she had been receiving some community pushback. She had been questioning whether the process was the
right way of “going about it” and had been resistant to paying attention to the details of the proposals
because she did not think it was a good time. It had been challenging for her to visualize spending the
amount of money necessary if the council moved forward.
Speaking to the materials provided to the council, Ms. Ortiz did not think the information the staff provided
about Cathedral City was valuable because it was an “apples to oranges” comparison.
Mayor Piercy asked how staff determined what level of public expenditure was appropriate. She expected
there were standards in place or that the manager had a percentage in mind. Mr. Braud said if the City
pursued the larger project, staff would need to do a cost-benefit analysis. There were intangibles also, such
as bringing housing downtown and a potential the projects would provide a change in the overall attitude
toward downtown. Mayor Piercy said it was difficult to make a decision when the council had no such cost-
benefit analysis.
Responding to the mayor’s question, Community Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan indicated
that both proposals were below 15 percent public participation, which was at the low range of the examples
staff provided to the council. He thought that both proposals were well within the range of what staff had
seen in other projects in other communities.
Ms. Taylor asked if a bus or shuttle could be paid for by urban renewal. Ms. Cutsogeorge said she would
have to look at the plan. Ms. Taylor recalled the plan included a street car.
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Central Services Director Jim Carlson said when the district was
formed, the assessed value in the district was frozen; that number did not change, no matter what happened
in the district from either demolition or improvements.
Ms. Taylor observed that the council was talking as if it had to choose one option or another. It did not have
to choose either.
Ms. Taylor asked staff to discuss the difference between an investment and a subsidy. Ms. Cutsogeorge
said if one looked at the opportunities as partnership between the private and public sector one might
consider it an investment. She suggested the question was somewhat political in nature.
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said that the agreement between the developer and
City would spell out the developers’ responsibilities even if the developer left town. He said it was a matter
of negotiating such protections into the agreement between the City and developer.
Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the staff work, saying it helped clarify the risk for him. The council
could then decide if the risk was tolerable. He did not think the council had yet discussed the acceptability
of the risk, which left staff in a difficult spot.
Ms. Bettman was happy to hear the council talk about the source of funds for urban renewal, which were
property taxes consolidated from different sources, like schools and the general funds of the county and
cities. It was important to expend those funds in the way they were intended, which was to benefit the
overall community by focusing reinvestments in downtown. That raised the issue of risk, and she wanted to
see very specific steps the council could take to reduce or reasonably remove risk. She pointed out that the
larger the development, the bigger the risk. Ms. Bettman noted the conditions requested by the developers
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
and said she would like to see such a list of conditions on the City’s part. She said the council needed to
think about other things it could do with the money, such as invest in a civic center and purchase pedestrian
th th
amenities for 6and 7 avenues.
Speaking to Ms. Taylor’s question, Mr. Zelenka defined a public investment as a situation in which public
funds are used to support a project one does like, and a subsidy is a public investment in a project one does
not like. He agreed that the council needed to determine the level of risk. Risk was relative; the bigger bold
projects had more benefits and greater risks.
Mr. Zelenka said he would like to see staff provide information about the possible impacts of a worst case
scenario. He asked that the financial information in the packet be summarized.
Mr. Clark said the council needed more conversation about the risk and benefits of inaction. He found the
current situation downtown unacceptable and said the risks of doing nothing were high and also unaccept-
able. When the council discussed urban renewal he would like to hear it talk about the purpose of it and the
benefits involved. He understood the reason such a district was created was to leverage private funds and
have a greater impact on downtown. He did not think the district’s intent was to underwrite the costs of
public infrastructure.
Ms. Bettman said in terms of the specific development, she thought that due diligence would require the City
to do a cost-benefit analysis of downtown regarding carrying capacity for housing and office use and
determine what the demographics could support and to identify the lowest risk investments for the City,
which the council was told by the downtown panel was housing, and the higher risks involved. She wanted
to have that information to evaluate any development proposal and did not want to have a cost-benefit
analysis of the specific development, as that would be missing the point of what the City needed and what
constituted a wise investment.
Ms. Bettman suggested that one small-scale development could lead to another such project and then
another, which could equal the large-scale investment, but that was not reflected in the projections provided
to the council. She thought the council needed to see that information.
Mr. Zelenka asked that ancillary and social benefits and costs be listed in conjunction with the projects. He
acknowledged that task would be subjective.
B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Project Update
Mr. Braud provided a PowerPoint presentation updating the council on the West Broadway project. He
reviewed the three options before the council and briefly noted the timelines for options 1 and 2.
Option 1: Select KWG Development Partners
Option 2: Select Beam Development
Option 3: Take no action on the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) responses
Mr. Braud reiterated the upcoming public input opportunity on April 30 and noted the upcoming council
work sessions scheduled on the topic on May 9 and May 11.
Mayor Piercy encouraged councilors to attend the public input opportunity.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
Mayor Piercy asked when all the costs would be known. Mr. Braud said that the City requested that
information from both developers. He believed that information would be available on May 9.
Mayor Piercy asked if the parking calculation took into account existing utilization. Mr. Braud believed the
answer to the question was yes.
Mr. Clark determined from Mr. Braud that none of the options the City held on downtown property had
expired.
Mr. Clark asked Mr. Braud if the two companies made assumptions about potential tenants. Mr. Braud
said they had made assumptions about the market. He said that the market for housing downtown was
strong. He suspected that once a project was selected, the project was likely to evolve and could change,
particularly after the City head from the community. He said that selection of a concept did not mean
anything was set in concrete.
Ms. Bettman said her preference was for Option 2, particularly since the already approved housing project
on the Sears site could be incorporated into the project. She said the Beam project was a small, incremental
project that could be started now. The larger KWG project would require a year of study to determine its
feasibility. She said that by accepting Option 2, a transition plan for the existing buildings would be
created, and the remainder of the footprint would be addressed in a separate process. Once the remainder of
the site had gone through public input, the City could issue another Request for Proposals.
Ms. Bettman said the turnkey parking structure was a no-bid contract and she did not see a public hearing
scheduled for the structure. Mr. Braud said the City would have to take those steps. He reiterated that the
City was still at the conceptual stage.
Ms. Bettman recalled that KWG was requiring a 13 percent yield, which could be changed by how much it
reimbursed the City for its options. Mr. Braud indicated the 13 percent yield on cost was based on the $18
million property acquisition. That had already been factored into the conceptual pro forma. The amount
needed to be injected to reach the 13 percent yield on cost was $1.6 million.
Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about off-site costs, Mr. Braud said those generally included the
costs of sidewalks and landscaping on public property.
Mr. Zelenka asked about the location of the 1,000 existing parking spaces. Mr. Braud said most were in
Broadway Place but the Overpark and Parcade parking garages were also located within two blocks. Mr.
Zelenka asked how many spaces $15.9 million paid for. Mr. Braud estimated it would fund about 300
public parking spaces. Mr. Zelenka observed most people do not know how expensive parking was.
Mr. Zelenka requested a pro/con comparison on the development options, that is, the developer doing the
plan versus the City doing the plan as described by Ms. Bettman.
Ms. Taylor thought April 30 was short notice for both the public and council.
Ms. Taylor noted the Beam’s latest proposal included housing in two locations.
Ms. Taylor hoped the council would discuss the issue of fees for unoccupied buildings downtown again.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
Ms. Taylor said urban renewal was intended to clean up blight, and if empty spaces were blight, certainly
the hole on Willamette Street qualified in that regard. She suggested it was an appropriate property for the
application of eminent domain.
Ms. Taylor wanted to drop the options on all but two sites and wanted to complete the housing project on
the Sears site. She thought public involvement should come before any decision. Regarding existing
businesses, she said the details indicated an upscale environment, which was not what everything was or
should be. She did not think the project would protect existing local businesses.
Mr. Poling thanked staff for the materials provided to the council and said he currently favored the KWG
proposal. He acknowledged the addition of housing in the Beam proposal but said that KGW also proposed
housing and a grocery store. KWG was also talking about LEED certification, reuse of existing buildings,
and its interest in working with local businesses.
Mr. Poling asked the status of the housing project at the Sears site. Mr. Braud said that KWG asked that
the process be suspended while the larger scale project was being reviewed. Mr. Poling asked if KWG
would still develop that site if the larger project did not go forward. Mr. Braud said yes.
Mr. Poling questioned how long the City could drag out the process before residents lost interest. He
emphasized that the council would only be examining concepts initially, and those concepts could be
modified by public and council input before a final project was selected. He thought it preferable to do the
large scale development and “kick-start” downtown.
Mr. Pryor said the downtown panel presentation demonstrated to him the complexity of the topic. He saw
the pros and cons of each option. He thought staff did a good job of framing the information, but was
concerned the council was moving in the wrong order. It needed more clarity on what it wanted. He was not
particularly enamored with the Beam proposal but feared the KWG proposal was too big for the community
and would reach a certain point and begin to unravel. He suggested it would not be the end of the world if
the options expired. Mr. Braud said the options would expire and he did not know if they could be extended
for all the properties involved.
Mr. Pryor did not know what to do at this point and preferred to be more deliberate. He suggested that
waiting might be the better strategy.
Ms. Bettman thought if the City wanted to kick-start downtown it needed to go with the “bird in hand” with
regard to the rehabilitation of existing buildings. The use was supportable and it was a small investment on
the part of the City. If the City committed to KWG it would not know for a year if it was viable. Then the
City could be in the position of doing nothing and having to do damage control, which did not leave it in a
good negotiating position.
Ms. Bettman indicated her intent to offer a motion related to the options the City held on downtown
property.
Mayor Piercy closed the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the manager to renew options #11
and #12 regarding the West Broadway project.
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman declined to amend the motion to drop the other
options.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 6
Work Session
Mr. Zelenka asked if the council needed to take action given the manager had the authority to take action
and he intended to renew the options. Acting City Manager Jones indicated the manager intended to renew
all the options.
Mr. Klein asked if Ms. Bettman intended that the manager not renew all the options as he thought that
should be made explicit. Ms. Bettman rephrased the motion to direct the City Manager to renew only
options 11 and 12. Ms. Taylor accepted the modification. Mr. Klein said the intent of the motion was that
the manager would be directed not to renew the other options.
Ms. Bettman pointed out that the other options did not expire on April 26.
Mr. Klein indicated the effect of the motion was to deny the KWG proposal.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the motion to include Option 15.
Mr. Poling said the council did not know what proposal it would support at this point and he did not want to
preclude the KWG proposal from moving forward by losing the options.
Mr. Clark thought it premature to end an option before the community discussion.
Ms. Ortiz did not understand the subject and did not support any of the options. She wanted to know what
the public was willing to pay for.
Mayor Piercy said she did not think the motion was necessary at this time as the council was in the middle of
the process.
The motion to the amendment passed 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting
no.
Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion to remove the word “only.”
The amendment to the motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting
no.
The amended motion passed 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no.
The meeting adjourned at 1:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 7
Work Session
ATTACHMENT B
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
May 9, 2007
Noon
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. WORK SESSION: CITY COUNCIL GOAL--NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT
ACTION PLAN
Acting City Manager Angel Jones introduced the item, noting it was the remaining council goal to be
approved.
Acting Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Renee Grube and Parks Planner Carolyn Weiss
were present for the item. Ms. Grube reminded the council that it had delayed adopting the action plan until
after the Neighborhood Summit. She reported that the first Neighborhood Summit held in February had
been a great success and all the neighborhood organizations were represented. In addition, members of the
council and representatives from the Budget Committee, Planning Commission, Police Commission, and
staff attended. The City received input on the 20 action items, and the action plan was included in the
packet as Attachment A. Three additional actions were added as a result of neighborhood feedback sessions
conducted by Police Chief Bob Lehner, Planning and Development Director Susan Muir, and Public Works
Director Kurt Corey.
Ms. Grube said the top three priorities identified by those present at the summit were: 1) involve neighbor-
hood associations earlier in land use proposals; 2) increase density in existing neighborhoods thoughtfully;
and 3) increase ongoing support for neighborhood associations.
Ms. Grube said the City formed a new staff team to work with the neighborhood associations and the
Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) to continue the implementation of the action plan.
Ms. Weiss referred the council to Attachment D, a comprehensive list of progress made to date on each
action item, emphasizing the top three priorities.
Ms. Grube acknowledged the contributions of Mr. Corey and City staff Beth Bridges and Roland Hoskins,
who did much of the work involving the summit. She also acknowledged the work of Ms. Weiss, Sarah
Medary, Lisa Gardner, Issac Markehe, Carolyn McDermed, Kathy Madison, Doug Perry, Randy Kolb,
Larry Hill, and Maureen Robeson.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
Mayor Piercy asked if staff had thought about how often such summits should occur. Ms. Grube
recommended they be held once annually but emphasized the effort involved. She invited input on that.
Mayor Piercy questioned if the NLC should be an official advisory body to the City Council given staff’s
involvement. Ms. Grube said the question had come up and the clarification of roles and a change in
structure was identified as an issue by the neighborhood associations. Mayor Piercy appreciated the
freedom the group had in the past but thought it was hard to treat it as an advisory body if it was not in a
formal structure.
Mr. Clark cautioned the council, in considering formalizing the structure of the NLC, not to create a
problem for the current representatives from neighborhood organizations who do not live in the city.
Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the work done by all and also questioned the weight the NLC’s
recommendations could carry in the absence of a formal structure. She supported having additional
structure around the role of the NLC. She did not think that a resident’s status was an issue because she did
not think the City precluded nonresidents from sitting on City committees. Ms. Jones clarified that all
committees had a residency requirement but the council could waive that requirement.
After clarifying with Ms. Grube what was being proposed for adoption and her interpretation that site
review and downzoning were incorporated into items 11, 12, and 13, Ms. Bettman indicated she would
amend the motion to include those items as higher priorities.
Mr. Zelenka said he liked the way the goal had developed as he thought it would give the neighborhood
associations the tools they needed. He noted his own involvement in neighborhood organizations and
thought the goal helped them to address their concerns about land use issues and protecting environments
and livability.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct staff to proceed with implementation of
the initiative with the following actions:
?
Approve the Neighborhood Empowerment draft goal language.
?
Approve the addition of three additional actions item to the Neighborhood Initiative
Plan.
?
Approve the priority order of action items based on the Neighborhood Summit results.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the priority order to place as the
highest priority in the first phase action items 11, 12, and 13. The amendment to the motion
passed unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Bettman clarified with Mr. Sullivan the number of City employees who worked in the Neighborhood
section now and then recommended to staff that rather than use the career development approach to filling
the new proposed position, staff seek outside expertise to realize the goal. Acting City Manager Jones said
staff would bring whatever resources necessary to bear to achieve the council goals and make an assessment
of how best the goals could be achieved. Ms. Bettman noted the $90,000 left from the past fiscal year and
suggested that if even if the position was filled in-house, some outside expertise might be necessary.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council and opened the meeting of the Urban Renewal
Agency.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
B. COUNCIL WORK SESSION: West Broadway Project Update
Senior Management Analyst Denny Braud joined the council for the item. He noted the responses to council
questions included in the meeting packet, and further noted the recent tour of Beam and KWG project sites
in Portland taken by Mayor Piercy and Mr. Zelenka. He also called attention to the comments of the
citizens who went on the tour.
Mr. Braud said staff had some conversation with the developers in the past two days about possible next
steps if one or both was selected. He said staff continued to recommend KWG.
Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments.
Mr. Zelenka said he had attempted to craft something that blended the three options that had been discussed.
He emphasized that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would include a public process and the
council was not making a decision on a final product at this time. The process that lay ahead would get the
council to the final product. He expressed appreciation for the considerable public input he received. Mr.
Zelenka said that not all would agree on the proposal he offered, but he hoped those who disagreed would
accept it, which would result in more housing and more commercial space without the downtown looking
“like Disneyland.” He was unsure if the council actually needed to take action that day on the motion he
proposed to put forward.
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to select Beam and KWG as the developers for
the West Broadway project, and to direct the agency director to initiate actions related to
agreements with the developers, a public process that includes a citizen advisory committee
with an independent planner/facilitator whose work will be completed in August, option
agreements, financial tools, and a relocation transition plan consistent with the agency’s
May 9 discussion, with all proposed actions and other options and agreements other than
the option agreements and renewals to be brought back to the agency for final authorization.
Mr. Zelenka envisioned that the City would sign MOUs with both developers and that the Beam group
would work on the Centre Court and Washburn buildings and the KWG group would have the remainder of
the footprint, including the site of the former Sears store. A public process would occur and an advisory
committee would be formed to work with the developers on a proposal to be brought back to the council in
September 2007.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to select the Beam Development Option 2,
and to direct the Urban Renewal Agency director to move forward immediately with the TK
th
Partners project as previously selected in the 10 and Charnelton Request for Proposals
process. As pertains to the remaining portion of the West Broadway development site foot-
print this motion further directs the agency director to secure the services of a qualified ur-
ban planner to oversee the public process for the remainder of West Broadway development
site footprint and to establish a West Broadway Development Advisory Committee to work
with a qualified urban designer to identify preferred design elements and mix of uses for the
remaining footprint of the West Broadway development site, as well as a transition plan for
existing businesses. The ad hoc committee shall be composed of approximately 12 mem-
bers nominated by the mayor and approved by the Urban Renewal Agency. In addition, the
agency director shall secure the services of a qualified consultant to perform a market
analysis and economic feasibility studies for the remaining portion of the site. This research
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
and analysis will inform the Urban Renewal Agency and the ad hoc committee’s delibera-
tions. The resulting recommendations will be used by the Urban Renewal Agency as the
basis for criteria to include in a formal Request for Proposals on the remaining balance of
the West Broadway development site footprint.
Ms. Bettman thought Mr. Zelenka’s proposal, as reflected in the motion, was vague. If she had not seen his
proposal, it might appear to be a compromise. She believed that basically it was an endorsement of the
KGW proposal while leaving Beam to redevelop just the buildings. It incorporated an existing approved
housing project into the larger footprint. KGW stated it must do feasibility studies that could take a year,
and she thought that was tantamount to doing nothing. Her motion moved the City forward and provided for
housing, historic preservation, and redevelopment of the Aster site while giving the City time to plan for the
remainder of downtown. Otherwise, everything was put off until KWG decided what was profitable. When
the council saw what the company was willing to build, it would be a year away and no ground would have
been broken on projects. She thought doing nothing was not an option.
Ms. Bettman said another downside of the KWG proposal was that the company said it would accommodate
the existing businesses but the company’s response to the Request for Qualifications suggested that it was
“every man for himself” while KGW did due diligence and construction. If those businesses could afford the
rent, they could relocate to their original sites. Her motion moved the community forward with two viable
proposals with considerable community support. Mr. Zelenka’s proposal included three public hearings,
and each would be a “divisive meltdown.”
Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Zelenka, Mayor Piercy, and the staff. He was happy to see the council work with
this much integrity toward an answer that worked for everyone. He said the public expressed support for
the development proposals before the council, and he thought the proposal put forth by Mr. Zelenka was a
way to reach common ground. Mr. Clark thought the public input the council received suggested that it was
time to act and breathe new life into downtown. His only concern was that he would not want to see
disagreement as a hindrance to final action, and asked that action be taken by the time of the last council
meeting on August 15. He asked that be accepted as a friendly amendment.
Speaking to the Ms. Bettman’s concern about the potential that disagreement would be expressed in the
public hearings, Mr. Clark suggested that was a good thing. He thought the council would find a way to
accommodate everyone and take action.
Ms. Taylor thought it was good that people were aware of what was going on. She stressed the importance
of an incremental, organic, local approach. It was a higher priority to Ms. Taylor that the existing
businesses downtown be protected, and she did not think Mr. Zelenka’s motion accomplished that. She
thought the City should proceed with the Beam proposal, which would renovate two existing buildings
without disturbing anyone. She suggested the City could negotiate with Beam about the Aster site.
Ms. Taylor said the council decided on the Sears site but without council direction, the manager had failed
to proceed. She wanted to proceed with that project as quickly as possible.
Mr. Poling did not support Ms. Bettman’s motion as it was too limited in scope and it lacked deadlines. He
termed it essentially a rehash of what the council had been doing. He said the City had been processing the
issue of downtown redevelopment for 20 years and it was time to act. He had favored the KGW proposal
because he repeatedly heard the City wanted a range of housing options as well as retail and commercial in
the downtown area, and that was what KGW proposed to do. He emphasized the word “proposed.” He said
a public process would occur. He said that Ms. Bettman complained about the public involvement involved
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
in Mr. Zelenka’s proposal but her proposal would also include a public process or the community would be
unhappy. He believed that no matter what the council did with regard to downtown, it would make
somebody unhappy. Mr. Poling called on the council to show leadership.
Ms. Ortiz commended Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Bettman for their proposals. She believed the council should
have as much public process as possible, although she acknowledged that the public had been processing the
issue for some time. Ms. Ortiz said she was challenged by the “whole thing” and would not speak to either
motion because she did not know what to do.
Ms. Solomon asked about the timeline required for both motions, and the experience of the two developers in
working in a public process. Ms. Muir said both developers were used to working in a public environment
and were willing to do so in Eugene. Mr. Braud said that staff would prepare timelines for the proposal
selected. Mr. Braud said the important component of the timeline was to have a MOU in place with both
teams, and staff thought that could be accomplished in a reasonable time frame. The MOU would lay out
the timeline and associated steps. The council would review and adopt the MOUs. Following the adoption
of the MOU, staff would work on development agreements with both developers.
Ms. Solomon asked if the Beam proposal would be accomplished more quickly. Mr. Braud said yes. Ms.
Solomon saw that as a plus as it eliminated the idea there would be “too many cooks in the kitchen.” If the
Beam project moved forward, by the time KWG was ready to move, it would be halfway accomplished.
Ms. Solomon said her preference was for KWG alone but she discussed the issue with Mr. Zelenka and
appreciated the work he had put into the motion. She thought it captured what everyone wanted and
supported the date certain for action proposed by Mr. Clark.
Mayor Piercy expressed support for Mr. Zelenka’s motion. She had recently lived in downtown for three
months at Broadway Place and found the West Broadway area to be not as bad as some said but not as good
as it could be. Everyone she talked to wanted to see something done now. Mayor Piercy thought both
developers had specialties the City could take advantage of. Beam had creative and innovative renovations
with a commitment to green building and the arts. KGW had expertise in residential over retail with an
emphasis on affordable housing and green building. She thought together they could do much for Eugene.
Mayor Piercy also supported moving forward with the Sears housing development.
Mayor Piercy said the City received an outpouring of support for both proposals and she thought Mr.
Zelenka’s proposal was a rational response to that input. It would provide for the public participation
desired. She said the developers expressed willingness to work with an independent facilitator and both had
experience doing so.
Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Braud to speak to the developers’ willingness to work together. Mr. Braud said
both expressed concern about the complexity of the approach but expressed willingness to meet and
determine if an agreement that worked for all parties could be developed. Mayor Piercy said both
developers expressed a willingness to work with local businesses.
Mr. Pryor agreed that public participation would be an important consideration and it could be built into the
process in a positive and productive way. He suggested the kind of development that needed to occur
downtown depended on “the slope;” if the slope was fairly easy, then incremental, local, and organic worked
just fine. However, there were aspects to downtown development that were better likened to a heavy climb
and he did not think incremental, local, and organic worked to accomplish that climb. He thought that Mr.
Zelenka’s proposal reflected the need that existed in the downtown and created a framework that he thought
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
provided the council with considerable latitude to do positive things downtown. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr.
Poling as to the importance of acting now.
Mr. Zelenka said the process had been a difficult one. He stressed that there were no specific proposals on
the table and the council had only seen broad-brush concepts. Both developers believed the scoping process
could be accomplished in three months and that would include a market analysis. He pointed out that
combining the proposals only added one block, but it was a crucial block because it was the heart of the
downtown. He said the advisory committee he proposed included an independent planner/facilitator and he
thought it needed to have a time certain to have its work done, such as by the end of August.
Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Zelenka thought the housing project on the Sears site needed to be
integrated with a project that included housing on the north side because they would be better projects. He
thought the neighborhood needed to change fundamentally to be successful. He emphasized that the result
of his motion would be nonbinding MOUs.
Ms. Bettman said that nonbinding MOUs meant that the City was not moving forward and would be
committed to KWG without having a proposal on the table. The council would be passing up an approved
proposal on the Sears site and if it fell through, the council would lose that opportunity. She termed Mr.
Zelenka’s proposal “KWG Light.” Mr. Zelenka had “carved out” the Centre Court and Washburn buildings
from the footprint and “thrown that bone” to Beam. He did not even give Beam the Aster property, which
could leave the city with two pits in downtown for at least another year.
Ms. Bettman said that once the City signed with KWG, it would wait a year. Her proposal, which was
Option 2 in the Agenda Items Summary, had been endorsed as a viable if not preferred option by City staff
and Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). She said it would be a mischaracterization to
say that Mr. Zelenka’s proposal had something for everyone. She was opposed to it.
Ms. Bettman believed that the KWG proposal would entail at least $35 million in public subsidies.
Ms. Taylor reminded the council about the Pankow and Van Dyn project proposals, which were never
realized. She thought the City should move forward with its current agreement for redevelopment of the
Sears site and adopt Ms. Bettman’s motion. If the council adopted the Beam proposal, work would start
sooner and the two holes downtown would be filled.
Ms. Taylor said that KWG might have indicated an interest in protecting local businesses but the firm also
indicated its interest in an upscale development that those businesses could occupy if they could afford it.
Mr. Clark determined from Mr. Braud that the developer thought it would take 12 months to secure anchor
tenants for the project. He said if the council valued public participation and meant what it said in that
regard, he thought it the decision was clear. The public wanted the council to act now, so he would support
Mr. Zelenka’s motion.
Mr. Poling disagreed with Ms. Bettman’s characterization of Mr. Zelenka’s proposal as “KWG Light.” He
perceived the proposal as a compromise.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to call the question. The vote on the motion was
a 4:4; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Ortiz voting no, and Ms. Solomon,
Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Pryor voting yes. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition to the
motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 6
Work Session
Mayor Piercy said the Beam proposal currently proposed to use the Aster site for surface parking, which she
did not think was the best use of the property. The company indicated the proposal was a placeholder as it
believed there was a better use for it. She asked KWG about innovative solutions to helping local
businesses to stay within the project footprint, and representatives of the firm indicated they had ideas about
how that could occur.
Mr. Zelenka said the MOU would commit the City to KWG and Beam as partners, but the details would
remain to be worked out. He noted his proposal called for relocation and transition planning for local
businesses. He did not think the Beam proposal took the City much farther than it had been five years ago,
when the Washburn and Centre Court buildings were fully occupied.
Mr. Zelenka said he would propose two amendments to his motion, one that the work of the committee be
done by the end of August and one incorporating elements of Ms. Bettman’s motion.
Ms. Bettman said she received a call from the owner of Lucky’s Tavern who said her property had not been
optioned and she did not want to sell. She indicated she knew of at least two other owners whose properties
were not optioned and who did not want to sell, but whose properties were included in the footprint of the
KWG proposal. She thought it overly optimistic to think the public process could be completed in three
months. She thought going forward with the KWG proposal was a big mistake and that it was also a
mistake to presume the businesses who did not want to sell would be a part of the project.
The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes.
Mr. Zelenka amended his motion, with the concurrence of his second, Ms. Ortiz, as follows:
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to select Beam and KWG as the developers for
the West Broadway project, and to direct the agency director to initiate actions related to
agreements with the developers, a public process that includes a citizen advisory committee
with an independent planner/facilitator whose work will be completed by the end of August
in time for City Council action in September after summer break. As pertains to the re-
maining portion of the West Broadway development site footprint, the motion further di-
rects the agency director to secure the services of a qualified urban planner to oversee the
public process for the remainder of the West Broadway development site footprint, and to
establish a West Broadway Development Advisory Committee to work with a qualified ur-
ban designer to identify preferred design elements, mix of uses for the remaining footprint
of the West Broadway development site, as well as a transition plan for existing businesses.
The ad hoc committee shall be comprised of 11 members, one each appointed by a council
member and three by the mayor. In addition, the agency director shall secure services of a
qualified consultant to perform a market analysis and economic feasibility studies for the
remaining portion of the site. This research and analysis will inform the Urban Renewal
Agency and ad hoc committee’s deliberations. Option agreements, financial tools, and a re-
location transition plan consistent with the agency’s May 9 discussion, with all proposed
actions and other options and agreements other than the option agreements and renewals to
be brought back to the agency for final authorization.
Mr. Clark asked that the motion be amended to indicate the council would review the work done on
September 10. Mr. Zelenka preferred to defer to the mayor and manager to see if that worked on the
schedule, but indicated that was his general intent.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 7
Work Session
Ms. Bettman believed that selecting a developer at this point made a sham of the public process. The
developer will make money but the City will not know what will be built for at least a year. She was not
won over by arguments about public process and suggested that residents would not want to participate
because they would have no impact on the final design. She noted that in its response to the Request for
Proposals, KGW indicated it understood that there was no design review or similar process required, and
that the land use entitlement was a function of satisfying City code requirements. In other words, the
company only had to follow the code to receive $35 million in public money. She found that very troubling.
Ms. Solomon said the council did not have a price tag for the KWG project and she did not think that
councilors should be making statements about subsidies if it was not known if it was true.
Ms. Solomon pointed out that things had changed since the RFP. She said the mayor reminded the council
that even the Beam group did not define what it planned for the Aster property.
Ms. Solomon determined from Ms. Muir that the added elements of Mr. Zelenka were workable.
Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Zelenka and the developers for trying to accommodate the City. He agreed that the
RFPs originally submitted were not relevant in light of the input received. He found it odd that Ms. Bettman
would suggest that there would be no public participation. He believed the public would be involved in the
design process.
Mr. Zelenka did not agree the process was a sham. He said the success of the process depended on it was
designed and implemented. The motion would not result in a deal being signed but in an MOU that would
create a process that would lead a plan to inform the development agreement, which would be the basis of
any future deal. The council had to “sign off” on all that, and the council could reject what was proposed if
it did not meet the City’s goals.
Mr. Zelenka said he asked the people against the KWG project to describe their vision of downtown, and
they described the KWG project to him. He was trying to break down the barriers to moving forward and
take advantage of the best in the two proposals.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to postpone action on the motion until the
next meeting.
Mr. Clark asked why the council should postpone action on the motion. Ms. Taylor wanted the public to be
aware of what the council was about to do so they could get in touch with the councilors. Mr. Clark
suggested that the council had already heard from the public and the motion on the table merely started the
process. He asked again why the council would want to postpone action.
Mr. Pryor said he would be happy to vote today as he liked the proposal but the council could give the
public a couple of days to allow the public to react.
Ms. Bettman thought the public expected the council to select an option and essentially Mr. Zelenka had
proposed Option 1. She thought postponement was acceptable.
Mr. Zelenka agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He said he was open to hearing ways to improve the
proposal in the interim.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 8
Work Session
Mr. Clark said that the motion proposed by Mr. Zelenka was nothing new; it was a synthesis of the best
parts of the proposal the community had already discussed. He questioned whether the council would learn
anything new before it acted. He said that while the public expected the council to listen, it also expected it
to decide and act, and that was what he would like to see it do.
The motion to postpone action passed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting
no.
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young
)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 9
Work Session
ATTACHMENT C
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
May 16, 2007
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer
Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
Council President Andrea Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She explained that
Mayor Kitty Piercy was out of town. Councilor Jennifer Solomon participated by speakerphone.
A. WORK SESSION:
City Manager Evaluation Process
Executive Director of the Human Resource and Risk Services Department Lauren Chouinard stated that the
council officers met to discuss the City Manager evaluation process and had made recommendations. He
reviewed the Summary of Recommendations contained in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He explained
that the council officers recommended using the coming year as a transition year while a more effective type
of a valuation based on the goals and expectations of the council was devised. He said the suggestion had
been made that the council should, for the present year, use the current form but with a change in the rating
scale from a 1 through 5 rating to a three-point rating scale consisting of ‘does not meet expectations,’
‘meets expectations,’ or ‘exceeds expectations.’ He underscored that the elements themselves were the same
as those in the last evaluation.
Ms. Ortiz noted that she wished to discuss the cost of living allowance (COLA). She said it had been used
as part of the manager’s compensation for the previous year. She expressed discomfort with its inclusion in
the contract.
City Manager Dennis Taylor expressed appreciation to the council for taking the evaluation seriously. He
said this was an expectation of the International City Manager Association (ICMA). He felt the process that
had been used over the past four years had many useful components but it had become “stale” because it
had “been a while” since the council embraced it. He noted that the present council had inherited the current
evaluation process. He averred that a good performance evaluation should arise from mutually determined
goals. He thought the council could collaborate with him to arrive at a set of goals for the performance
period that would be one of the bases for evaluation. He said the other area for consideration would be an
emphasis on some of the things for which the City Manager had overall responsibility, such as human
resource management. He listed the areas that were not explicitly included in the evaluation: labor relations
– how many grievances were filed and employee morale - budget and finance issues, diversity, communica-
tion, strategic planning, work planning, problem solving, conceptual skills, and council support. He felt that
the current performance appraisal was akin to having nine different raters with nine different rulers.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that part of the contract addressed the COLA. He said the council
might need to authorize an amendment to the contract.
In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, City Manager Taylor explained that the COLA had been placed in
the salary matrix when he received the contract.
Ms. Bettman was pleased that the council officers recommended a comprehensive look at the evaluation
process. She referred to the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Evaluation Handbook. She felt the handbook
had much to contribute to a viable evaluation process. She related that the book suggested the evaluation
process be determined by the entire council and that there should be public input, especially on the criteria.
Ms. Bettman shared her concern with the recommendation of the council officers to have an interim
modification to the process. She felt this would lead to having different data for three consecutive years.
She believed this would mean the City would lose data because the years would not be comparable to each
other.
Mr. Pryor commented that there were three pieces to the discussion. He said one was what to do this year,
one was what to do next year, and the third was how to handle the compensation part of the process. He
observed that the current evaluation was a subjective process. He stated that he would not have a difficult
time drawing comparisons between the two years given that the categories proposed for the present year
were the same as the categories used in the previous year and only the numbering would change.
Mr. Pryor said he had not been satisfied with the existing evaluation process. He wanted it to have more
narrative, rather than just numbers. He thought the LOC handbook would be a good resource for the
process but he would not support a motion that required the council to use it at this point. He stated that the
evaluation was a basis for compensation and was a vehicle to talk about goals and outcomes. He added that
the transition process was similar enough to the previous year that he could still use that year as a basis, but
it was different enough that he did not feel he was doing “a whole lot of stuff” he did not consider helpful.
Mr. Poling expressed appreciation to Mr. Pryor, Ms. Ortiz, and the Mayor for making the decision to review
and modify the process. He agreed that using the numbered rating scale was outdated and was not accurate.
He felt it was cumbersome and time-consuming. He favored the proposal.
In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Chouinard explained that there were two pieces to the
compensation that the council dealt with in each evaluation: a merit decision and the COLA decision. He
said the past practice had been to give the City Manager a COLA at the same rate as the exempt employees,
which is as of July 1.
Ms. Ortiz averred that the COLA should be automatic and not contractual.
Mr. Zelenka asked if there was an existing compensation policy. Mr. Chouinard replied that compensation
was supposed to be +/- 5% of the market rate. He said generally speaking compensation was such that if an
employee was performing satisfactorily, he or she would receive a merit raise. He underscored that the City
only withheld merit increases when faced with employees with serious performance difficulties. City
Manager Taylor added that an employee only received step increases based on merit until he or she reached
the top step.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Chouinard stated that a market survey was conducted every
year for the position. He noted that most of the comparables did not feature salary ranges for city managers.
He said the organization treated the city manager differently from other employees of the organization.
Mr. Zelenka asked why the council officers were suggesting a change in rating to three levels. Mr. Pryor
replied that it came from a desire to change it from a more cumbersome rating process. He said it looked
like a way to simplify it.
Mr. Zelenka preferred the one through five rating scale because he felt it provided a better gradation in
rating and would be more useful. He said he liked “360” evaluations.
City Manager Taylor remarked that as part of being a credentialed city manager he had to undergo a “360”
evaluation every three years.
Mr. Klein stated that it was also proposed that the process be changed so that the councilors would rate the
categories and not each one of the indicators.
Mr. Zelenka thought the proposed transition represented a substantial change to the process. He said if the
council was going to change the whole evaluation process then it should do so. He added that he reviewed
Ms. Bettman’s proposed motion and liked it, with the exception of the inclusion of the handbook.
Ms. Ortiz suggested that the council form a subcommittee of four to work on the evaluation process. She
thought a transition year was important. She reiterated her discomfort with the past two evaluations. She
wanted to look at compensation separately from City Manager Taylor himself. She averred that the City
needed to look at how people in other places were paid for the same type of work. She stressed the
importance of offering attractive wages and benefits to get qualified employees who were passionate about
their work.
Ms. Taylor did not know why the rating should be changed from a one-to-five to a one-to-three scale. She
said when she did not know how to answer a portion of the evaluation she simply indicated that she did not
know the answer. She commented that the council did not have any access to what goes on inside of the
City’s departments. She indicated that she would favor eliminating the things in the process that do not
pertain directly to the council’s evaluation of the manager.
Mr. Clark said he would not feel comfortable serving on a subcommittee given that he was a “new guy,” but
he would favor convening a subcommittee to review the evaluation process.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved that the council maintain the current
evaluation procedures for this evaluation cycle incorporating the recommendations for a
work session on the compensation, the self-evaluation, and the explicit goals and expecta-
tions for this evaluation cycle; and select a council subcommittee to recommend to the full
council a draft framework for an improved city manager’s performance evaluation that can
be implemented for the 2008 evaluation. The framework will consider the League of Ore-
gon Cities “Handbook for Evaluation of the City Administrator” and incorporate at a mini-
mum, the following:
?
Provision of an opportunity for input of managerial and non-managerial staff on
criteria for evaluating the city manager;
?
Provision of an opportunity for public input on the criteria for evaluating the city
manager;
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
?
Development of tools to solicit high volume and high quality feedback on perform-
ance from managerial and non-managerial staff.
Ms. Bettman opined that it was appropriate to retain the existing criteria for evaluation until new criteria
had been developed.
Mr. Pryor observed that the “world would not end” if the council used the old system for the current year.
He said the most important thing to him was what the new system the council would come up with would be.
He wanted it to be effective, useful, and to reflect what the council wished to accomplish. He did not
perceive anything in Ms. Bettman’s proposal that would preempt this. He was glad the council was
discussing a change in the evaluation process.
Ms. Taylor thought the ideal time to discuss a new system was after an evaluation because that was the time
councilors were most cognizant of what did not work in the current process. Regarding compensation, she
was not sure whether the City of Eugene should be compared with other places. She believed in “that extra
paycheck we get.” She commented that there had not been any shortage of applicants when the job had been
open and that it cost more to live in some places.
Mr. Clark said he would appreciate having the opportunity to have a subcommittee delve into the process
prior to the evaluation. He stated that in the absence of this, he would be happy to trust the council officers
in their work to try to bring it to a revised process. He felt that either way the council would be able to get
to a reasonably similar outcome for the present year.
Mr. Zelenka reiterated his preference to retain the current process for the current year while a council
subcommittee worked on revising it. He agreed that the best time to revise it would be just after completion.
He added his agreement that the COLA should be automatic and not part of the contract.
Ms. Ortiz offered a friendly amendment to include bullet points 5, 7, and 8 from the Sum-
mary of Recommendations, as follows:
5. The City Manager will provide a written self-evaluation.
7. Set a date certain work session for the City Manager to return to the council with an
articulated set of expectations and goals for the coming year that would be agreed
upon by all.
8. Conduct a market study and decide on compensation policy prior to the evaluation
work session.
Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment.
Ms. Ortiz indicated that she planned to offer her services on the subcommittee.
Mr. Pryor said if the motion should fail because of the first sentence he would be willing to put the same
motion on indicating that the transitional process would be used in the current year.
In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Ortiz explained that the transitional process was less bulky
and involved less finger-pointing. Mr. Pryor concurred. He said it focused more on the subjective elements
of having an evaluation that was based on conversation and discussion rather than just numbers.
The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the motion that Ms. Bettman proposed
with the following substitution:
“use the one-year transitional process for this year” in the place of “maintain the cur-
rent evaluation procedures for this evaluation cycle.”
The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition.
Mr. Poling offered to serve on the subcommittee.
Ms. Solomon signed off at 12:49 p.m.
B. WORK SESSION:
An Ordinance Concerning Setting Fees and Charges and Amending Sections 2.020, 2.442, and
6.411 of the Eugene Code
City Manager Taylor explained that the ordinance was coming before the council as a result of recent court
decisions. He asked City Attorney Jerry Lidz to elaborate.
Mr. Lidz stated that a recent decision made by the Oregon Court of Appeals struck down a fee that the
manager had adopted for a failure to comply with the code process, and in particular Section 2.020. He said
the section generally authorized the City Manager to set fees and charges for City services, licenses, and so
forth. He related that it described the notice and comment process and it directed the manager to consider
five factors when adopting fees. He added that other sections of the code often set additional standards. He
said in the recent court decision city staff or the manager, based from work done by staff people, adopted
fees to recover the City’s cost of managing permits for various utilities to do work in the City right of way.
He noted that there was a specific code section in Chapter 7 that stated those fees must fully recover all of
the City’s costs for processing the permit and inspecting the work done under the permit.
Mr. Lidz further explained that based on an analysis staff had conducted on what the City’s costs were the
City Manager adopted certain fees which had been then challenged by Comcast. He related that one of the
numerous grounds for the challenge was that the City Manager had not specifically compared the City’s fees
for this purpose to fees adopted by other cities. He indicated that staff had not considered this comparison
to be relevant given that the City had language in the code directing the manager to recover all of the costs
and most cities subsidized those permit programs. He said the Court of Appeals did not agree with this and
declared that the City Manager must consider what other cities had done.
Mr. Lidz explained that the proposal in front of the council was intended to say in those cases where it
would be a “meaningless step” to consider one of the factors listed in the code the City Manager need not do
it. He felt that in practice it would have little effect with the exception of, in rare cases, saving some staff
work. He stated that the “safeguard” was that the City Manager would have to make a written finding
explaining that he considered a certain factor to be irrelevant or not applicable and why. He stressed that
the Court did not require the City to make the change; should the City not make this change the City would
have to jump to a hoop that was in some cases meaningless and in some cases would require a lot of staff
work.
Ms. Taylor thought it sounded reasonable. She asked if the written findings would come to the council. Mr.
Lidz replied that it would not necessarily come to the council, but the findings would be posted.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
City Manager Taylor said it would not be difficult to ensure that the City Council received copies of the
findings given that fee orders do come before the body.
Ms. Taylor indicated that she would like to have a provision that the council would receive the findings.
Mr. Clark asked what the particular fee in this particular case was related to. Mr. Lidz replied that it was
for communications companies to do work in the city rights of way.
Mr. Clark asked if the City’s fees could be characterized as higher than those in other jurisdictions. Mr.
Lidz responded that he would not characterize them thusly. He did not think the change would affect the
amount of fees.
Mr. Zelenka asked if the ruling had resulted in the exact same fee. Mr. Lidz replied that it would have done
so, but staff had not redone the fee at this point. He said the specific directive from council that the fee had
to recover all of the charges was still in effect.
Ms. Bettman said she had no problem sending the item to public hearing.
Ms. Bettman asked if the ordinance would give the manager the ability to waive or discount specific fees
after the fee schedule had been adopted administratively. Mr. Lidz replied that it did not.
City Manager Taylor said all fees were consistent with the ordinance.
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to send the recommended ordinance forward to
a public hearing with an amendment to require that any written findings would be part of
the notice sent to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
The meeting adjourned at 12:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson
)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 6
Work Session