HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes
Meeting Date: July 9, 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 11, 2007, Work Session, May 14, 2007, Work Session, May
14, 2007, City Council Meeting, May 29, 2007, City Council Meeting, and June 13, 2007, Work
Session.
ATTACHMENTS
A.April 11, 2007, Work Session
B.May 14, 2007, Work Session
C.May 14, 2007, City Council Meeting
D.May 29, 2007, City Council Meeting
E.June 13, 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\M070709\S0707092A.doc
NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council
DATE OF MEETING: April 11, 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
6/22 ky Draft to Staff
(Date & Initials)
Reviewed/Returned by Staff
7/2 bf Returned to Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Returned to Staff
________ Council Amendments Incorporated
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=
ATTACHMENT A
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
April 11, 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.
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
City Manager Dennis Taylor sought direction from the City Council regarding a number of annexation bills,
noting that none of them had been scheduled for a hearing before the State Legislature. Intergovernmental
Relations Manager Brenda Wilson was also present for the item. She said that Senate Bill 887, introduced
last session, had resulted in an interim work group that met between sessions and developed a report, but no
legislative concepts. The work group, which included Eugene representatives, continued to meet with
different members. The legislative committee with oversight over the subject asked the work group to
consider what it could and could not live with in a final bill, which appeared to be House Bill 2760, initially
introduced by Representative Chris Edwards.
Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter noted the staff recommendations included in the meeting packet, which had
their basis in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan), which assumed that
development within the urban growth boundary (UGB) would annex, and staff’s concern about retaining the
City’s flexibility to consolidate the city limits once annexation occurred.
Mr. Yeiter said that Intergovernmental Relations staff indicated to him that the bill abolishing the Lane
County Local Government Boundary Commission would pass.
Mr. Yeiter reviewed the bills currently before the Oregon State Legislature that dealt with annexation and
posed a series of policy questions to the council.
Retain the City’s ability to use the island annexation process?
Mr. Yeiter noted staff’s support for retaining that authority.
Ms. Bettman recalled that the council previously gave direction to staff that precluded the creation of islands
from annexation through annexation of street rights-of-way. She suggested the council take the resolution
addressing that issue off the table at this time, given its impact on the rest of the discussion.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to take from the table the prior resolution.
Responding to a request from Ms. Solomon for an explanation of the resolution, City Manager Dennis
Taylor recalled the resolution was to preclude annexation of street right-of-way if it created an island. City
Attorney Glenn Klein further recalled that the council directed staff to halt the practice of seeking additional
right-of-way if it created an island; he had recommended the council also amend the resolution regarding
annexation guidelines so it was consistent with the direction already given to staff. The motion would put
the amendment to the resolution consistent with the council’s direction back on the table.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy declared the resolution back on the table.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend Section 1 of Resolution 4903 by (a)
adding the words “revising and” before the words “adding language”; and (b) replacing the
word ‘should” with the word “may.” The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Speaking to the policy issue, Ms. Bettman was not willing to support a policy that allowed the City to
pursue island annexations, particularly if they included property that was being involuntarily annexed. With
regard to the boundaries, she suggested that another way to create islands was to utilize streets and
waterways as boundaries. She agreed with the Metro Plan policy that the City was the logical provider of
service and eventually all property inside the UGB would be annexed and served in a cost-effective way.
However, she thought that should be a negotiated process, making progress toward that goal. She thought
the City had overreached by being so aggressive, alienating the residents in that area. She suggested the
City proceed with the tools it had at hand.
Mr. Clark concurred with the remarks of Ms. Bettman, and requested staff comment about the value of the
policy to the City. Mr. Yeiter indicated the City had not used island annexations for about 15 years. The
last time island annexations were employed was in the Bethel area. He suggested that island annexations
had value in that they give the City a tool to force annexation after negotiation had failed. Mr. Clark asked
why the City would want to force annexation on an unwilling resident. City Manager Taylor suggested
reasons such as rational service provision, emergency response, and tax equity and fairness concerns. He
said the State legislation created a context for each governing body to use in its approach to annexation. In
other communities where he had worked, such annexations were a normal feature of annexation law,
although frequently contested. City Manager Taylor said there were many parcels throughout the city, not
just in the River Road/Santa Clara area, that were not annexed but were wholly surrounded by property
inside the city limits. Eugene had decided not to force annexation on those properties. In other jurisdictions,
residents decided annually whether to annex wholly surrounded islands once yearly as a rational way to
provide for tax equity and service provision. He recommended the council preserve the tool as an option.
Mayor Piercy said the elimination of the boundary commission would change annexation in the future. She
suggested that the City could retain the tool with council oversight. She asked what must be put in place to
retain the tool while making it clear that the council was consulted. Mr. Yeiter said no changes would be
required as the law left that decision up to the governing body. The council would have to initiate the
annexation. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein said that a
public hearing would be required to approve, although not to initiate, an annexation request.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
Ms. Bettman said she would be willing to retain the tool in extenuating circumstances, given the fact that
public hearings and council oversight would occur, but not for “housekeeping” annexations that were often
controversial in nature.
Ms. Taylor thought past City practice regarding annexation had created a problem. She wanted to listen to
the residents and was reluctant to oppose bills that allowed residents to vote. She said the council had given
direction to staff regarding the annexation of streets but she thought it important that people who annexed to
the city wanted to do so for the future of the city.
Ms. Taylor liked the bills that phased in property taxes for properties annexing to a municipality. She
wanted to support those bills as she thought they might be an incentive for people to annex. She thought the
City would regret it if it forced people to annex later. She thought they would recognize the value of
annexing to the city over time.
Ms. Taylor advocated for discussion of broad principles to guide the Council Committee on Intergovernmen-
tal Relations (CCIGR) rather than specific bills.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to have a general policy that Eugene have the
ability to use the island annexation process in extenuating circumstance and with the ap-
proval of the City Council, including a public hearing. The motion passed unanimously,
8:0.
Flexibility should be permitted to allow administrative approvals and/or approvals by a hearings
official rather than by an elected body for non-controversial annexations?
Ms. Bettman, seconded Ms. Ortiz, moved that flexibility should be permitted to allow ad-
ministrative approvals and/or approvals by a hearings official rather than an elected body
for simple, non-controversial annexations. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no.
Support use of streets and waterways as boundaries for island annexations unless UGB and city
limits can be used as border for annexations?
Speaking to the issue of waterways serving as boundaries, Mr. Clark asked if ditches or street-side culverts
qualified as waterways. Mr. Yeiter said those may qualify as waterways, although the legislative definition
was not clear. Given that the UGB was largely defined by streets and waterways, particularly in the
northern part of the community, staff was concerned about a prohibition on their use as boundaries. In
addition, the City had been able annex non-contiguous properties through the boundary commission, and in
the absence of the boundary commission, someone wishing to annex would not be able to do so if their
property was not contiguous to a piece of the city. He acknowledged the practice of using streets had been
abused in other communities through a practice known as “cherry stemming.”
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that streets may be used to create contiguous
annexations for voluntary annexations in River Road/Santa Clara and within the UGB.
Ms. Bettman agreed that if someone wished to annex voluntarily, that desire should be accommodated as
long as the property was within the UGB.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Yeiter said that a pending bill would allow a property
across the street from an annexed property to be considered contiguous.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy noted the time and asked the council for a motion to extend time for the discussion.
Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to continue discussion on the item for 10 min-
utes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Bettman expressed concern that using the UGB to create an island would allow for involuntary
annexations. She could support the use of streets and waterways for voluntary annexations.
Mr. Poling thought there might be times when the City needed to use streets and waterways for island
annexations.
Mr. Clark suggested the council consider the environment; the likelihood the boundary commission would be
abolished was high, and he thought giving staff some latitude was acceptable since the council would
consider each annexation and it would be the subject of a public hearing
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the council did not support the use of
streets and waterways as boundaries for involuntary annexations.
City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the motion spoke to legislation that was intended to govern
every municipality in the state. He said that other communities might find it desirable to use both waterways
and streets in annexations, although the Eugene council might choose not to. He did not recommend making
it a prohibition statewide. Ms. Bettman argued that the City was taking positions on bills consistent with
what worked for the City, although she acknowledged the potential statewide impacts.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion by stating the City sup-
ported the use of streets and waterways as boundaries for island annexations unless the
UGB and city limits can be used as a border for annexation, following a public hearing and
council approval.
Mr. Poling said that the amendment to the motion would retain the City’s ability to use the island annexation
process.
The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting
no.
The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no.
Extraterritorial extension of services should not be allowed other than provided by the Metro Plan?
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to process annexations in a manner to be con-
sistent with the Metro Plan policies. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Oppose required votes by general public for individual annexations?
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
If votes are allowed or required, oppose legislation that would allow the votes from the area being
annexed to outweigh the votes of the city residents?
Ms. Taylor did not think the City should oppose a bill that allowed the votes of the residents of the city to
outweigh the votes of those being annexed. If a majority of those to be annexed were opposed to annexation,
that position should prevail.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that if votes were allowed or required, the City
supported legislation allowing the votes from the area being annexed to outweigh the votes
of the city residents.
Mr. Zelenka asked why the City residents would even have a vote in that case. He asked how such a
process would work. Mr. Yeiter said that different areas do it differently; some mix the vote from the
annexed and non-annexed areas, while others separate the vote so a smaller area could “trump” a larger
area’s vote. The issue had not been settled by the courts. He confirmed that the City had never used such
an approach.
Ms. Bettman asked if the bills requiring votes all mandated a vote, pointing out the council would normally
oppose such legislation based on home rule. Ms. Wilson said there were three proposed bills that required
some sort of democratic process. Ms. Bettman objected to the requirement and did not think the City needed
to take a position on the first question because of the violation of home rule.
Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Yeiter said that some of the proposed legislation supported
Ms. Taylor’s position. Ms. Bettman thought the scope of the annexation needed to be taken into account
and indicated she lacked sufficient information to take a position.
Ms. Solomon objected to any proposed policy that suggested her vote was not as important as another
resident’s vote.
Mr. Pryor did not have enough information to take a position, but if the motion failed he would be willing to
offer a motion that stated the City did not support anything that precluded home rule.
The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Ortiz voting yes.
recommend to the CCIGR that it take a
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to
position that no issues around voting should usurp home rule or local control.
The motion passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no.
Oppose mandatory tax phase-in provisions, unless they are coupled with mechanisms that make it
easier for the City to incorporate properties inside the UGB?
Taxes during the deferral period should not be lower than before annexation?
Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of the tax phase-in provisions, saying she opposed anything that usurped
home rule.
Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson said the bill would require all local jurisdictions
to phase in taxes if it passed.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City oppose any mandatory positions,
but was willing to utilize deferral periods as long as taxes during the deferral were not lower
than previous.
Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Bettman clarified that it was her position that deferrals
should only be used for involuntary annexations, rather than for properties that the owner wished to develop.
She did not want mandates from the state.
The motion passed 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no.
B. WORK SESSION: Discussion on Role of Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations
and Process to Establish City Council Policy on Legislative Matters
Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston provided some historic background on the
Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR). She reviewed the CCIGR process for
reviewing proposed legislation and said that the committee’s recommendations were to be ratified by the full
council. She said that two questions had recently come up with regard to the committee, one being whether
the committee’s actions must be ratified by the full council prior to lobbying in Salem, which the council
discussed earlier in the week, and the other was the committee’s purview over legislation related to human
resources and collective bargaining, which were currently the responsibility of the City Manager through
council resolution.
Ms. Wilson, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, said that when the committee did not have a unanimous
position on a bill, she still assumed that it represented the position of the council, but in one situation the
committee’s position on a bill was overturned by the full council. It had not affected the City’s lobbying
efforts on that particular bill, but it might in other cases. She asked for council direction.
Ms. Wilson described how bills were reviewed and said bills that addressed staffing, employment, and
collective bargaining were referred to staff in Human Resources and Risk Services (HRRS), as the staff
there were best qualified to evaluate them. In some cases it was clear that a bill was specific to personnel
and management issues while others addressed broader issues, such as medical marijuana in the work place
and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The resolution previously mentioned delegated that
authority to the manager. She asked for direction on that issue.
Ms. Bettman called for the recession of the resolution mentioned by Ms. Walston, which she considered
ambiguous. She suggested that if the council could not get through all the issues today, it endorse the
current protocol of the CCIGR and schedule another work session.
Ms. Bettman offered a list of questions for the council to consider: Did the position of the CCIGR stand as
the council position before council ratification of committee actions? Was there a distinction between a 2:1
vote and a unanimous vote at the committee, regardless of the makeup of the committee? Did the council
want to consider appointments based on different constituencies to ensure a broad range of opinions on the
committee? Did the position of staff represent the position of the council either before committee action or
council ratification? If the committee was not authorized to represent the City position unless ratified by the
council action, should it change its meeting format to make them longer and more frequent to expedite
ratification? Should members be appointed with the goal of achieving political balance? Was there a
charter justification that prohibited the council from taking action on State legislation related to human
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 6
Work Session
resources or personnel? If the council had not taken a position on those bills, could staff take a position on
behalf of the City organization on those bills?
Speaking to the resolution mentioned by Ms. Walston, Ms. Bettman said that City Attorney Jerome Lidz
indicated to the CCIGR that the resolution was ambiguous.
Mr. Pryor thought Ms. Bettman raised legitimate questions that were based on a lack of clarity, consistency,
or transparency in the process now being used. He said that it appeared the committee was a tradition that
preceded the current council. He was concerned about the authority of the committee as opposed to the
council, and about the authority of the manager as it related to the committee and council. His second
concern was ensuring a procedure that ensured appropriate oversight, accurate representation, and that the
default position the City took was the most inclusive of its position. Mr. Pryor thought that the tradition
was that the vote of the CCIGR was the official position of the City unless the council voted to overturn it.
He did not want the City’s default position to be one that could be set by two people representing a majority
of the committee.
Mr. Pryor thought the council needed a procedure that allowed staff to lobby in Salem with the confidence it
had the council’s endorsement, not the endorsement of one or two councilors. That could result in staff
taking one position one week and reversing itself the following week. He would prefer to be silent rather
than take a position on legislation that would be changed later because of the haste of the process.
Mr. Pryor pointed out that that when he raised a split committee vote to the council, it led to significant
discussion and debate, which suggested to him that the City was taking positions in Salem that, unless
someone made an effort to change, were being set by three people. He preferred instead that committee
actions be ratified by the full council in what ever timely system could be established before staff lobbied in
Salem.
Mayor Piercy said she was a “substitute member” of the CCIGR if someone was absent. She said that
council’s operating agreements indicated that the committee’s split votes were to be automatically brought
up at the council, but that was not occurring. Mr. Pryor had taken the initiative to bring those votes
forward.
Mayor Piercy said the history of the resolution delegating the authority over human resource bills and
collective bargaining had been debated before by past councils. She believed the charter was clear about the
specific City personnel issues within the purview of the manager but said there were larger policy debates
occurring at the State level, and the City needed to participate in those discussions. She contended the
council was delegating a policy role to the city manger through the resolution.
Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mayor Piercy. She recalled that in the past, the council considered
the CCIGR’s recommendations on the Consent Calendar and individual councilors pulled items. She
thought for the entire council to consider every single bill, it would need longer weekly meetings and would
not be able to have a break.
Ms. Taylor did not think the committee process represented a matter of two people setting policy. If other
councilors did not like a position taken by the committee, they could ask for discussion.
Mr. Zelenka determined that Ms. Wilson considered herself governed by the majority vote on the committee.
Ms. Wilson said the City’s most important asset in Salem was its credibility. She could explain a single
changed position, but not twenty of them. It was not an issue for some bills because they were not moving.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 7
Work Session
If the committee assigned a bill a status of Priority 1, Oppose, she did all she could to kill the bill. If the
committee assigned a bill a status of Support, it was slightly easier to change the City’s position. Mr.
Zelenka determined from Ms. Wilson that the council had switched the committee’s position about five times
this year.
Mr. Zelenka said his dilemma was that the legislature moved fast, which was why the City Council had the
committee. He did not have time to track all the bills and thought the process had worked well in the past.
He said that every process has “foibles and bruises and bumps” associated with it. He asked Mr. Pryor
what he would do in the absence of the committee process to respond to the immediacy of the legislative
process.
Mr. Pryor did not think the entire system was broken. On unanimous votes, the current system probably
worked well, as it was most likely that the entire council would endorse those positions. His principle
concern regarded split votes. He preferred to leave the process in place, but where there was a split
committee vote, he did not want the lobbyist to take a position to Salem as the position of the City. He said
that might put Ms. Wilson in a bind, but would also prevent her from having to change the position later on.
Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the City “had been operating like this for years” and he did not think the issue
of split votes had been a problem before.
Ms. Bettman asked if staff resources could be available in the case of a 2:1 committee vote on a high
priority issue to get the issue to the City Council in the interim before scheduled council ratification.
Ms. Bettman said she would move to rescind Resolution No. 4139. She said if staff had a concern that
committee review of a bill had charter implications, it could indicate that. She thought the council needed to
review those bills because they addressed broad policy issues, and otherwise the opinion of City staff would
be given more weight than that of the elected representatives. She would then move to create operating
agreements for the committee.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the manager to return with a resolu-
tion rescinding Section 7 of Resolution 4139.
Mr. Clark said he would support the motion because when the lobbyist spoke in Salem she spoke for the
body, and he thought the City’s policy should be driven by the council rather than staff.
Mr. Pryor also supported them motion, emphasizing it was no reflection on the City Manager, and
suggesting that whatever resulted needed to be a collaborative process given the importance of having staff
expertise.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff, in collaboration with the
CCIGR and the Intergovernmental Relations Manager, to draft operating agreements for the
CCIGR and to bring them back to the City Council for approval.
Mr. Zelenka hoped whatever process was developed allowed the City to be able to respond quickly to events
in Salem.
Mr. Pryor indicated support for the motion. He did not want to create a burden on staff but believed the
council could move in a more transparent and timely fashion.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 8
Work Session
City Manager Taylor said that the City took a position on so many bills at so many levels the council might
want to consider a different approach to Priority 1 bills, which were the bills of most concern. He said that
sometimes, it was necessary to take a position in a timely manner; in other cases, it might be possible for the
City to wait.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Bettman said the committee was aware of the issue raised by Mr. Pryor and would work to address it.
However, she pointed out that the committee did considerable research in its review of proposed legislation,
and she questioned whether that was feasible for the full council. She said that there were not many such
bills involved, but she thought when the CCIGR brought such bills to the council, it behooved the council to
review them carefully because they were frequently quite complex.
Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to the members of the CCIGR and to staff for its support of the
committee. She invited council suggestions for process improvements and recommended they be sent to Ms.
Bettman as soon as possible.
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 9
Work Session
NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council
DATE OF MEETING: May 14, 2007
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
6/5/07rma Draft to Staff
(Date & Initials)
Reviewed/Returned by Staff
7/2 bf Returned to Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording
7/2 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
May 14, 2007
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling,
Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
Council President Andrea Ortiz convened the meeting. She noted that Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy would
participate by telephone.
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY
COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER
Mr. Pryor reported that the Human Services Commission (HSC) was trying to finalize its budget requests
and had two options, one that included its portion of the funding from the Secure Rural Schools act and one
that sought to address the worst case scenario. He said the City would not be able to absorb the level of
funding in that scenario because it would be in the neighborhood of $250,000. He thought the request that
would be before the Budget Committee would be for approximately $140,000. He anticipated that there
would be discussion on it at the committee’s meeting scheduled for May 15.
Ms. Taylor requested a memorandum regarding whether it would be expensive to reactivate the water spray
at Tugman Park. She related that some of the neighbors there had asked that it be reactivated.
Ms. Taylor wished to comment on an article in The Register Guard regarding the difficulty of fighting fires
when “sprawl” was allowed to happen. She also wished to highlight the letter from the Madison Garden
neighbors that emphasized the importance of having “little spots of nature” as the City became more densely
developed. She noted that the Madison Garden neighbors had a $30,000 challenge grant. She thought it
would be a good thing for the City to help out with.
Ms. Bettman stated her intention had been to place a motion before the council to direct the Police Auditor
to pursue an administrative investigation. She said since the Mayor was not present and the council was
scheduled to discuss the strategic plan for the Eugene Police Department (EPD) on May 29 she would defer
the motion until that time.
Mr. Poling reminded everyone that ballots for the May election were due on the following day. He
congratulated the recent EPD graduates. He said this would be the last graduating class from the regional
police academy. He related that during the Police Commission meeting there had been a discussion on the
state academy; it had been built but was not yet staffed adequately to handle all of the recruits throughout
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
the state. He explained that all recruits would attend this academy now. He thought it possible that the
cities of Portland and Eugene would have to open up their regional academies again at some point.
Mr. Poling announced that the National Law Enforcement Memorial Service would be held on May 15 at
noon at the Wayne Morse Free Speech area. He noted it was an annual event. He said that at 3 p.m. on
May 16, the EPD would hold its award ceremony at the Hilton Hotel.
Ms. Solomon related that the Housing Policy Board (HPB) held a retreat on May 7. She said the previous
year had been a big year for the HPB as it had worked on the ordinance changes related to manufactured
home parks. She stated that the ordinance changes were nearly complete and the HPB was looking forward
to seeking out more opportunities for affordable housing in the area. She said the board would be looking at
ways to creatively add to the stock of affordable housing.
Ms. Solomon stated that several weeks earlier an email circulated that said there would be news about the
J.H. Baxter & Company and the email asserted that its emissions had been found to potentially cause cancer
to neighborhood residents. She said this was not true. She related that the report, conducted by the
Superfund Agency, would indicate otherwise. The agency was scheduled to review the results of the report
at 7 p.m. on May 17 at the Red Cross Office on Bethel Drive and anyone was welcome to attend.
Mr. Clark noted that 1,000 Friends of Oregon indicated support for the City of Eugene to conduct a
buildable lands study.
Mr. Clark reported that he met with Lane County Commissioner Bill Fleenor and members of the Santa
Clara Community Organization. He said they discussed their choice of place for a community park that had
come before the council in terms of potential consideration of eminent domain. He related that they had
looked at several alternatives for parks locations.
City Manager Taylor thanked Assistant City Manager Angel Jones for filling in for him on a busy week. He
said he had attended his daughter’s graduation from nursing school. He added that his daughter now worked
in the operating room at the Billings Clinic in Billings, Montana.
Ms. Ortiz said she met with Police Chief Bob Lehner at the Bethel Public Safety Station on May 2. She
noted that she missed the Police Commission meeting on May 10 because she had attended the Dia de las
Madres celebration at Meadowview School. She stated that over 350 people attended and the event featured
children doing dances from different states in Mexico.
Ms. Ortiz related that she had driven to Portland with a group of Bethel School District representatives. She
explained that State School Superintendent Susan Castillo had recognized 10 schools for closing the
achievement gap. She noted that the schools Ms. Castillo focused on were those with low socio-economic
status (SES) students. She was inspired to see so many people working toward the common good of
educating children. She stated that Meadowview School had been a recipient of this honor.
Ms. Ortiz said she attended an open house at Peterson Barn presented by the Eugene Water & Electric
Board (EWEB) regarding its potential building project in that neighborhood. She related that it was well-
attended. She had also met with Trainsong neighbors to plant a garden. She felt it would have been better
attended had it not been Earth Day.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
Continuing, Ms. Ortiz commented that it had been a grueling couple of months at the Human Services
Commission (HSC) as they tried to work through the potential budget crisis. She averred that even the best
case scenario was not a good picture.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
B. WORK SESSION:
City Council Goal – Enhance Understanding of Race Issues and Improve Race Relationships
Action Plan
Ms. Ortiz thanked the community for serving so many hours on the committee. It spoke to her of the
committee members’ commitment to help the City evolve.
Executive Director for Human Resource and Risk Services Lauren Chouinard echoed Ms. Ortiz’s opening
comments. He also thanked the members of the “Race Team,” City Diversity Consultant Jason Mak,
Human Rights Program Manager Greg Rikhoff, Assistant City Manager Jones, Police Technical Services
Division Manager Lynn Reeves, and Library Assistant Francisco Gutierrez. He noted that he served on the
team as well.
Mr. Chouinard reviewed Attachment A: Council Priority Enhance Understanding of Race Issues and
Improve Race Relationships Action Plan.
Ms. Ortiz highlighted the Council Committee on Race (CCR) recommendation to create a community
cultural center. She said there had been a “lot of energy around this.” She related that it would not only
allow people to get to know each other’s cultures, it would provide a “home” for community groups. She
pointed out, as an example, that the Chinese Lion Dancers do not currently have a place to store their
costume pieces and could potentially use such a center.
Ms. Ortiz said Attachment C: Community Committee on Race Recommendation contained the recom-
mendations that the committee wished the council to take on. She said her main goal had been to work on a
strategic plan; to get to the point at which the council looked at “everything systemically” throughout the
City and how it fit into the recommendations from the CCR.
Mayor Piercy joined the meeting by telephone at 5:58 p.m.
Mr. Zelenka averred that the CCR had been a “great group of people.” He felt they really cared about
making Eugene a place for all people to live and prosper together. He wanted to especially acknowledge
Ms. Ortiz and Human Rights Commission Chair Carmen Urbina for their work on the process. He believed
that they needed to do a lot of work in that area. He supported the action plan.
Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the work the CCR had undertaken. She believed that the City had
made targeted and focused progress on this goal. She wanted the racism study circles to be available for
councilors. She was happy to see the item related to the legislative agenda because she thought the staff and
the council had done a good job of taking strong positions on legislative issues having to do with race and, in
particular, the immigration issue.
Ms. Bettman believed that any contractors with whom the City did business should be required to uphold the
standards the City upholds.
Ms. Bettman supported educating youth about race awareness. She thought the City could help defray the
costs of such an effort.
Ms. Taylor asked if there were plans to do anything in the schools. She also asked for an example of the
media perpetuating stereotypes. Mr. Rikhoff cited several examples, including a series on drug use in the
local community that featured almost exclusively photos of Latino men as the purveyors of drugs.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
Ms. Ortiz stated that the CCR did not talk specifically about schools. She underscored that the council only
had jurisdiction over Eugene but the City should take leadership and emulate the behavior that it would
expect from the surrounding jurisdictions. She hoped that any youth who were being harassed would go to
their respective principals to get the support needed to address the situation.
Ms. Ortiz asked what was meant by “key high profile race related incidents and issues from the past” in the
second item on the list of Uncompleted Items from Original Action Plan. Mr. Chouinard replied that he
could not remember which councilor had brought that item up. He recalled that this was from the original
work plan. He assumed that one or two of the councilors had brought it up and wanted to see a discussion
of a high profile incident such as the one that happened several years earlier in which an African-American
man was stopped and searched.
City Manager Taylor stated that this matter was still in litigation over a tort claim action based on it.
Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Chouinard, the other staff members, and the people who gave their time to the CCR.
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the proposed enhance Understanding
of Race issues and Improve Race Relationships action plan as amended.
Mayor Piercy conveyed her appreciation to the CCR for the effort they had made. She thought it was good
to set goals and remain accountable to them.
Mr. Chouinard stated that one thing that was being piloted within the organization was a shortened version
of the racism study circles.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Council President Ortiz adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene
Urban Renewal Agency at 6:09 p.m.
C. WORK SESSION:
West Broadway Project Update
City Manager Taylor explained that this was a continuation of the discussion on the Request for Qualifica-
tions (RFQ) process for the West Broadway area. He reported that the City had been able to talk with both
development teams and an agreement to work together in principle had been forged should this be the tack
the council would take. He noted that the motion was already on the table.
Mr. Zelenka reread his motion into the record:
“I move to select Beam Development and KWG Development Partners as the developers for
the West Broadway project, and to direct the Agency Director to initiate actions related to
agreements with the developers; public process that includes a citizen advisory committee
with an independent urban planner/facilitator whose work shall be completed by the end of
August and presented to the Agency in September; option agreements; financial tools; and a
th
relocation/transition plan, all consistent with the Agency’s May 9 discussion, with all pro-
posed actions, other than option agreement renewals and extensions, brought back to the
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
Agency for final authorization. This motion further directs the Agency Director to secure
the services of a qualified urban planner/facilitator to oversee the public process for the
West Broadway development site footprint, and to establish a West Broadway Development
Advisory Committee to work with a qualified urban planner/facilitator, and the developers,
to identify preferred design elements, mix of uses, public open spaces, options for parking,
as well as a transition plan for existing businesses. The Agency and the Advisory Commit-
tee would also seek additional public input. The Advisory Committee shall be composed of
11 members, with each councilor selecting one member and the Mayor selecting three mem-
bers. In addition, the Agency Director shall secure the services of a qualified consultant to
perform market analysis and economic feasibility studies. This research and analysis will
inform the Agency and the Advisory Committee’s deliberations.”
Ms. Taylor said the development footprint included existing businesses and she was opposed to that. She
did not think existing businesses wanted to transition to another place. She asked when Thomas Kemper
th
Partners was chosen for the redevelopment project at the site on the corner of Charnelton Street and 10
Avenue and when that process had been suspended. Senior Management Analyst for the Community
Development Division Denny Braud replied that TK Partners had requested that it be allowed to suspend its
work on the site in order to work on the RFQ in December, 2006.
Ms. Taylor asked when the development project at the former Sears site would have been completed had
construction not been suspended. Mr. Braud responded that it had been projected to have been completed a
year after construction had begun.
Ms. Taylor surmised that the project could be very nearly done if the process had not been discontinued.
Mr. Braud clarified that construction would have begun but would not have been completed at this point.
Ms. Taylor expressed disappointment that the project on the former Sears site was not going forward.
Mr. Zelenka assumed in this motion that the advisory committee would bring its ideas to the council for
review. He expressed appreciation for all of the people who participated in the process. He acknowledged
that not everyone would agree on the process and said he had attempted to craft the motion so that it would
have “a little bit for everyone.” He asserted that this part of the downtown needed to fundamentally change.
He felt the developers had different strengths; Beam was good at rehabilitating old buildings and KWG was
good at building a diverse mix of housing over retail. He thought it was prudent to undertake a three-month
process in order to gain adequate input from the committee.
Mayor Piercy appreciated Mr. Zelenka’s work on this. She supported bringing the partners who helped
sponsor the public workshop to the table. She averred that the advisory committee’s recommendations
should play a significant role in how the area was redeveloped.
Ms. Bettman asked if the City would enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
developers. Mr. Braud replied that this would be one of the next steps. Ms. Bettman asked if the MOU
would require that the proposal be consistent with the recommendations of the advisory committee. Mr.
Braud responded that the MOU would outline the public process and the timeline and that all parties
involved would agree to that process.
Ms. Bettman asked if the City could require the developers to comply with the recommendations of the
advisory committee. Mr. Braud explained that the City had to ultimately approve the development
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 6
Work Session
agreement and the Urban Renewal Agency ultimately decided whether the redevelopment projects should
receive Urban Renewal money.
In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that the next decision point was
scheduled for September.
Ms. Bettman indicated that she still supported the Beam Development project. She averred that when the
motion “died of its own weight, cost, and uncertainty” she hoped the City would look at concrete proposals
that it had the ability to move on instead of going through a “long convoluted decision-making with the
developers in the driver’s seat and the public in the back seat.” She thought the City could already be
breaking ground on projects. She believed that if the proposal was approved that the City would not be
fulfilling its fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers. She likened it to buying “champagne and caviar with food
stamps.” She asserted that it was not a cost-effective way to do business. She opposed the motion.
Ms. Solomon expressed optimism about the proposal that Mr. Zelenka and Mayor Piercy had put together.
She wanted to ensure that motion indicated that the developer and the community maintained a dialogue.
She believed it would make a great “end product.” Mr. Zelenka affirmed that this was his intent.
Mr. Clark said he had been very impressed with the KWG Development Partners proposal. He had also
been impressed with the work that had been done by Mr. Zelenka, Mayor Piercy, and staff over time to
refine the proposal. He felt the motion looked like it had the support it needed and that it would “finally
breathe some life into the downtown.” He related that the vast majority of emails he had received on this
item had supported taking action.
Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to have the Mayor appoint the committee members.
Mr. Zelenka accepted the friendly amendment as did the second.
Mr. Pryor stated that one of the key elements of the discussion had been the role of the public to help shape
the project. He felt it was critical to conduct the public engagement in good faith and with sincerity. He
related that he had just participated in a process to hire a consultant to help facilitate a discussion involving
different groups and the process had been undertaken efficiently and amiably.
Ms. Ortiz supported the motion although she was not “100 percent there at this point.” She needed to see
how the project would “look and feel.” She said she was concerned about the amount of urban renewal
money the project could take and that the moment the developers had the go-ahead, they could potentially do
as they saw fit.
Mr. Poling also had supported the staff’s proposal. He still believed it was the best proposal, but because of
Mr. Zelenka’s work and input from the community, he thought the current proposal was workable. He
commented that he would prefer to have the advisory committee selection process remain the same, but he
would support the motion.
th
Mr. Zelenka shared Mr. Poling’s optimism. He said he also wanted the Charnelton Street/10 Avenue site
to be filled as soon as possible, but he felt the proposal was a better way to go as it would integrate the
smaller project into the larger project. He stated that the end result would be five times the amount of
housing.
Ms. Taylor reiterated her objections. She commented that the councilors had received many emails but she
averred that a “great campaign” had been conducted and a model letter for submittal had been supplied to
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 7
Work Session
people. She related that many people said the City should not have two holes in the downtown when the
time for the 2008 Olympic Trials arrived. She asserted that the proposal would guarantee that there would
be two holes at that time.
City Manager Taylor thanked the Mayor and Mr. Zelenka for the hard work. He believed that the proposal
would lead to a plan that the Urban Renewal Agency and the community could embrace.
Mr. Zelenka clarified that his original motion intended for the Mayor to make the selection of the advisory
committee members in consultation with the council and asked Mr. Clark if this was what he intended with
his friendly amendment. Mr. Clark affirmed that this was his intent.
The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
Council President Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 8
Work Session
NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council
DATE OF MEETING: May 14, 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
6/7/07rma Draft to Staff
(Date & Initials)
Reviewed/Returned by Staff
7/2 bf Returned to Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording
7/2 ky 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
May 14, 2007
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor,
George Poling, Bonny Bettman, and Betty Taylor.
In Mayor Kitty Piercy’s absence, Council President Andrea Ortiz called the regular meeting of the Eugene
City Council to order. She noted that a government class from Marist High School was in attendance and
welcomed them.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Council President Ortiz reviewed the rules of the public forum.
Pauline Hutson
, 1025 Taylor Street, noted that she was also speaking on behalf of Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki
th
and the Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT). She opposed the potential EmX route on West 11
Avenue for numerous reasons, including the cost of moving Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) utility
lines and easements from property owners. She believed the additional costs such a corridor would incur
would exceed $15 million. She felt the corridor, if built, would create a terrible impact on traffic in the
corridor. She averred that the negative impacts on businesses and the community outweighed any benefit the
th
installation of an EmX corridor on West 11 Avenue might bring.
th
Bob Cassidy
, 1401 East 27 Avenue, supported public investment in downtown development. He believed
it would aid in the realization of future revenues. He said he was one of the people who had heard the
“pitch” for city development for 30 years and expected future revenues. He was puzzled as to why the City
was allegedly “going broke” while getting “all these revenues.” He asserted that the City did not seem to be
able to handle the basics such as fixing potholes. It seemed to him that public investment was a gamble. He
commented that when he gambled he did it on a small level.
Mr. Cassidy expressed hope that the City would purchase the Butterfly Lot if it was put up for sale by the
County. He noted that he had been surveyed by phone. He found the questions regarding the proposal for a
new city hall to be difficult to respond to because there were few options for answers. He hoped the council
would keep this in mind, should the survey results be brought to them for review.
Jon Pincus
, PO Box 422, Noti, thought any development, such as the proposed downtown project, that
required a large subsidy should include public participation. He felt the best way to get the public behind a
project was to involve them in the decisions that led up to it. He also urged the City not to prepare the site
prior to having a firm commitment to construction.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 1
Regular Meeting
th
Drix
, 307½ East 14 Avenue, averred that Eugene was a wonderful town. He believed every member of the
community had “another little piece of the truth.” He said everyone had ideas and a good place to put those
ideas would be in the two holes in the downtown area. He supported trying something new. He opined that
a hole was a place that the wrong thing had not been built in yet and in that way was a good thing.
th
Jon Cline
, 643 West 10 Avenue, advocated for the City Council to take action for quieter train crossings.
He asserted that anyone who lived within a mile of the trains was affected by the noise of train whistles. He
said trains “blast” through every train crossing. He related that he had overnight guests recently who were
unable to sleep through because of the noise. He noted that he did not reside in the Whiteaker neighborhood.
He felt sorry for Whiteaker residents as the summer was coming and people would want to open their
windows to let in air. He recalled that the council had voted in June 2006 to direct the City Manager to take
steps necessary to obtain State section 130 funding for crossing safety improvements to quiet trains. He
stated that City Traffic Engineer Tom Larsen had attended many meetings with a variety of neighborhood
and business groups and had made presentations regarding several potential options for altering the current
situation. He urged the council to act to move the process forward and work to quiet the train blasts. He
called it a significant quality of life issue.
Council President Ortiz closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors.
Councilor Zelenka thanked everyone for coming. He specifically thanked the high school students for being
there.
Councilor Zelenka likened the work session vote on the potential downtown development to “getting
engaged.” He said the council would follow up with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
developers that would explain how the City wished to proceed and what its intentions were and included in
this would be a public process over the next three months. He stated that this would create a plan which
would then return to the City Council for its approval and this would turn into a development agreement in
September.
Councilor Solomon welcomed all of the youth to the council meeting. She said if any of them ever had any
questions, the councilors would be glad to respond. She noted that some councilors would be willing to
come and talk to a class. She especially wished to welcome Grant Gardino, a seven-year-old student at
Buena Vista Elementary School. She explained that Mr. Gardino already loved politics and had a heart for
social service. She related that he had “raided the kitchen cabinets” the previous weekend in order to put
food out for the postal service food drive.
Ms. Ortiz observed that a Boy Scout troop was also in the audience and welcomed them.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
- February 26, 2007, Work Session
- February 28, 2007, Work Session
- March 12, 2007, Work Session
- March 12, City Council Meeting
- April 18, 2007, Work Session
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Adoption of Neighborhood Matching Grants
D. Approval of Brackenfern Right-of-Way Exchange
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 2
Regular Meeting
E. Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission FY08 Regional
Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program
F. Amendment to City of Eugene Debt Policies
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent
Calendar with the exception of the minutes from the February 26 Work Session.
Councilor Bettman pulled Item E.
Councilor Taylor noted she had submitted a correction to the minutes. There were no objections.
Councilor Ortiz pulled Item C.
Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exceptions of the min-
utes from the February 26 Work Session, Item C, and Item E, passed unanimously, 8:0.
Councilor Ortiz initiated the discussion of Item C Neighborhood Matching Grants. She asked City Manager
Dennis Taylor to discuss the grants.
City Manager Taylor stated that after a four year hiatus for the Neighborhood Matching Grants, the council
had a proposal for $50,000 in matching grants.
Councilor Ortiz said she reviewed the grants and was pleased with what she had seen. She explained that
the City allowed neighborhoods to apply for matching grants to enrich their neighborhoods. She felt it was
one way the City kept its community engaged.
Councilor Bettman asked how the membership of the advisory committee was determined. Neighborhood
Manager for the Community Development Division Beth Bridges explained that nine people served on the
advisory committee, three of whom were current or past neighborhood leaders, three were from the voter
pool, and three were experts.
Councilor Bettman asked for their names. Ms. Bridges said she would send Councilor Bettman a list.
Councilor Bettman asked if the grants had been prioritized and asked if that meant that the ninth application
on the list had not been funded. Ms. Bridges replied that the order the grant applications was listed in was
alphabetical and not by priority. She stated that each member of the committee rated the applications
according to certain criteria and from this a spread sheet was generated. She explained that the committee
then ranked the projects and allocated the funding until the $50,000 was exhausted.
nd
Councilor Bettman stated that she had been impressed by the 22 Avenue and Garfield Street intersection
repair project. She noted she had received a number of communications from the affiliated neighborhood
organization in support of the project. She asked if that project would be first on the list in the next cycle of
the matching grants. Ms. Bridges responded that this was not the process established. She explained that
the organization could submit proposals and go through the process again.
Councilor Bettman surmised that the residents would have to “start from scratch with every cycle.” Ms.
Bridges did not agree with that assessment but said they had already done all of the work of creating the
proposal so it would not be from scratch.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 3
Regular Meeting
Councilor Bettman ascertained that the council could vote to change the process to allow a project that had
met qualifications for a funding year to remain in the queue.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to give priority to previously
submitted qualifying grants.
Ms. Bridges observed that this would mean that in the next cycle there would be only $25,000 to offer after
funding the remaining projects from the previous year.
Councilor Solomon expressed appreciation to Ms. Bridges for the work she did for the grant program. She
indicated she would oppose the motion as she felt it would not be fair to tie the hands of the advisory
committee.
Councilor Zelenka asked if Councilor Bettman meant the previously approved projects would automatically
receive funding. Councilor Bettman affirmed that this was her intent.
Councilor Zelenka did not agree with changing the rules at this point. He said if he had known that the rules
would be changed in this way he would have encouraged the people from his ward to submit a lengthy list of
projects and they would have used up the entire amount of available funding for more than one cycle.
Councilor Bettman said she would accept a friendly amendment to make her motion effective for the next
funding cycle. Councilor Zelenka indicated he was not interested in changing the process. He averred that
all projects should compete in a given funding cycle on their own merits.
Councilor Zelenka asked if there was consideration of geographic distribution of the grants. Ms. Bridges
replied that there is the ability in subsequent years for the advisory committee to rearrange it as a ranking of
the grants to achieve geographic distribution.
Councilor Pryor opposed the motion. He supported having projects compete on their own merits every time.
He said each round needed to be fair to all of the applicants.
Councilor Bettman felt people get discouraged if they “keep coming back and keep getting burnt.” She
asserted that there was no requirement in the operating procedures of the department advisory committee to
provide geographic equity and this led to a concentration of projects in certain wards.
Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Taylor, and Bettman voting in favor.
Councilor Poling asked when the Willakenzie Park tree planting project was slated to occur. Ms. Bridges
replied that the park improvement was scheduled for summer, but would most likely occur in the fall
because it was better for trees to be planted at that time.
In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Poling, Ms. Bridges explained that the grant application
for the Willakenzie Park project that had not been funded, a project to add artistic tiles around the
playground, was for $900, which would then be matched so that the total project would have $2,000. She
said it would have been an added element to help explain the history of the park.
Ms. Bridges affirmed, in response to Councilor Poling, that the City would do the tile installation if the
funds to make that project happen were provided by a private party.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 4
Regular Meeting
Councilor Zelenka said he had been impressed by the grants. He asked when the deadline was for the next
round of applications. Ms. Bridges replied that final applications were due February 22, 2008, with the
deadline for the pre-review set at December 3, 2007. She stated that applications for the next round would
be available in July.
Councilor Zelenka asked that the Budget Committee be provided the Agenda Item Summary (AIS)
attachment for the Neighborhood Matching Grant program.
Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Councilor Ortiz initiated discussion of Item E Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission FY08 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program.
Councilor Bettman asked if all of the costs that could be funded by Systems Development Charges (SDCs)
were being funded by SDCs.
City Manager Taylor asked Wastewater Division Manager Dave Breitenstein to the podium. Mr.
Breitenstein invited Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) General Manager Susie
Smith to respond to the question.
Ms. Smith explained that the MWMC embarked on $15 million in revenue bond financing for the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). She said the debt service payments had been scheduled out of SDCs and user
rates in accordance with eligibility of those funds.
Councilor Bettman interjected that she had read all of this. She repeated her question. Ms. Smith replied
that for the present year, all of the costs that qualified for SDCs were funded from SDCs.
Councilor Bettman asked if SDCs were recovering the full cost of capital construction. Ms. Smith replied
that they were not. Councilor Bettman concluded that the ratepayers would have to make up the difference.
Councilor Bettman asked what the projected outcome was on the SDC lawsuit filed in 2004. Ms. Smith
responded that the lawsuit had been recently resolved in the Oregon State Court of Appeals and the decision
had affirmed the MWMC and its two partner cities approval of the SDC methodology. She believed the
time had expired for the Lane County Home Builders Association to appeal that decision to the Supreme
Court.
In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Smith affirmed that the MWMC filed a complaint
against the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding the establishment of the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) rule for temperature and the manner it had been established. She believed that Eugene
staff would be bringing a work session to the City Council to review the TMDL with the council.
Councilor Bettman asked what the point would be to hold a work session given that adoption of the budget
would allegedly result in a $75,000 increase in attorney fees to litigate with the DEQ. Ms. Smith responded
that $75,000 was the level set for the generalized attorney’s fees. She related that the level for MWMC
litigation expenses for the TMDL and for the suit brought against the MWMC by Oregon River Watch was
set at $200,000. She could not give an estimate at this time of what it would cost to resolve the matter with
the DEQ. She recommended that Councilor Bettman refer further questions to the legal counsel for the
MWMC.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 5
Regular Meeting
Councilor Bettman expressed reluctance to support the budget. She asserted that it included approval of
lawyer’s fees for the MWMC to pursue a claim against the DEQ. She alleged that the MWMC was
lobbying for a lesser threshold of environmental quality.
Councilor Bettman asked if the City of Eugene’s contribution of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees to
the wastewater division was proportional to the City’s population. Ms. Smith replied that it was not
proportionate; it was reflective of the services agreements between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and
the MWMC. She stated that Eugene and Springfield work together to view and develop proposals for what
activities were necessary for each of those functions.
Councilor Clark asked if it would be fair to say that if the DEQ was successful in its action that it would
cost the people in the City of Eugene tens of millions of dollars to build a cooling tower that could be
scientifically argued to be unnecessary. Ms. Smith said she could not answer this directly. She stated that
the MWMC had in its CIP a plant to address the TMDL. She explained that the MWMC was not trying to
get out of implementing environmental improvements to address the temperature concern. She related that
the MWMC had in its plans a $25 million reclaimed water program to remove discharge from the river
itself. She declared that given the current wasteload allocation, the term for the amount of regulatory
constraint that the MWMC had according to the rule the DEQ issued, the MWMC was looking at between
$35 million to $50 million in additional capital expense that the MWMC would meet in a variety of ways.
She stressed that the MWMC was moving forward with TMDL measures and reiterated that it was not its
intent to avoid regulation to meet temperature constraints.
Councilor Clark asked how Ms. Smith would characterize the MWMC’s response to the DEQ’s require-
ments. Ms. Smith replied that the MWMC as a whole had taken a close look at how the rule was issued,
how it impacted the MWMC, and how the specific regulation was derived. She stated that the MWMC took
“very strong issue” with how the MWMC was treated in that TMDL. She said the issues were outlined in
the complaint, which was public, and the City Attorney could supply additional information to the council
should the councilors request it.
Councilor Taylor asked if the council could approve the budget and exclude the portion of the budget that
would pay for the lawsuit. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the council could not stop the lawsuit.
He said if the council was interested in excluding a portion of the budget he would recommend postponement
of the adoption of the budget in order to allow legal review of the intergovernmental agreements between the
cities and the MWMC to determine exactly what those agreements require.
Councilor Taylor asked if the council had no choice about whether the MWMC filed a suit against the DEQ.
Mr. Klein replied that the MWMC was a separate legal entity and had the authority to file lawsuits.
Councilor Taylor moved to table the motion until further information was available to the
council. The motion died for lack of a second.
In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, City Manager Taylor stated that the work session Ms.
Smith referred to was scheduled for June 25.
Ms. Smith confirmed that final adoption of the budget for the MWMC was scheduled for June 23, in
response to Councilor Bettman’s query.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 6
Regular Meeting
Councilor Bettman indicated she would oppose the budget. She believed that seeking a lower TMDL
threshold was not consistent with “where this community’s values are.” She requested a copy of the
complaint.
Roll call vote; the motion to approve the budget and Capital Improvement Plan for the Met-
ropolitan Wastewater Management Commission passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bett-
man voting in opposition.
3. ACTION:
Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of March 22, 2007, April 5, 2007,
April 12, 2007, and April 19, 2007
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Re-
lations Committee actions as set forth in the minutes of the March 22, 2007, April 5, 2007,
April 12, 2007, and April 19, 2007, meetings of the Council Committee on Intergovernmen-
tal Relations.
City Manager Taylor noted that Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson was available to
respond to questions.
Councilor Pryor asked Ms. Wilson to indicate which of the pulled bills were already “dead.” Ms. Wilson
stated that Senate Bill (SB) 758, House Bill (HB) 2934, HB 3063, and SB 701 were effectively dead.
Ms. Wilson reported that HB 3264 was still alive and was currently in the Revenue Department. At
Councilor Pryor’s behest, Ms. Wilson summarized the bill. She noted that the staff member who reviewed
the bill felt it would create an unfunded mandate to collect a lot of data that might not necessarily be used.
She related that he thought it would be unfriendly to small businesses. The staff recommendation had been
to oppose the bill and the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had, by a 2:1 vote,
changed the recommendation to support the bill.
Councilor Bettman indicated that she had thought HB 3363 was the bill that had more to do with contract-
ing. Ms. Wilson responded that both bills were being handled by a work group that was being led by
someone from Minnesota who had enacted these types of provisions. She said the work group was supposed
to create a report to submit back to the legislature.
In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Wilson affirmed that it was likely the bills would be
combined.
Councilor Bettman averred that the bill would create accountability with enterprise zones or other economic
and community development money. She believed it covered many of the issues that the council wrestled
with but had been hamstrung by the State statute. She asserted that the bill would tie the money to the jobs.
She urged the council to support the existing CCIGR position on this bill.
Councilor Clark asked what committee the bill had been assigned to and what Ms. Wilson thought the
Governor’s inclination was with regard to it. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had been assigned to the
Revenue Committee, which meant it did not have to meet the May 31 deadline. She stated that Minnesota
had a similar program that was working very well. It was her understanding that the recommendation was
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 7
Regular Meeting
heavily supported. She speculated that the Governor would support the recommendation of the work group
when it was completed.
Councilor Solomon stated that all of the information the bill would require was already part of the West
Eugene Enterprise Zone. She declared that the City received the information and tracked it. She said the
bill seemed like an attempt to add bureaucratic layers. She could not see anything the bill would require that
the City was not already doing.
Ms. Wilson stated that the two bills that were introduced were an attempt to mirror the Minnesota law. She
noted that the law was working well there. She said once the report was completed she would provide
copies of it to the council.
Councilor Pryor recalled that such information would be collected upon application in order to gain
reauthorization in the Enterprise Zone. He surmised that the concern lay in that the information was not
necessarily tracked through the whole process. He underscored that the reason to oppose it was that it was
an unfunded mandate; it would require a significant amount of money, time, and effort for the City of
Eugene to begin compiling and collecting the information to report back to the State.
Councilor Taylor averred that the bill would lead to more accountability and transparency. She also
believed it would eliminate a subsidy based on the types of jobs provided.
Councilor Bettman reiterated her support for the bill.
Councilor Zelenka said he would support the recommendation of the CCIGR. He believed the bill would
increase transparency. Regarding a potential unfunded mandate, he felt the City could find some creative
ways to get the money back.
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the position of the Coun-
cil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations on House Bill 3264 to oppose the bill. Roll
call vote; the motion failed, 4:4; councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor, and Clark voting in fa-
vor and councilors Ortiz, Bettman, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition.
Councilor Ortiz called for the vote on the main motion.
Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Solomon voting in opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 8
Regular Meeting
NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council
DATE OF MEETING: May 29, 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
6/18/07rma Draft to Staff
(Date & Initials)
Reviewed/Returned by Staff
7/2 bf Returned to Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Returned to Staff
__ ____ Council Amendments Incorporated
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=
ATTACHMENT D
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
May 29, 2007
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor,
George Poling, Bonny Bettman, and Betty Taylor.
Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum.
Joe Collins
, 2233 Hawkins Lane, did not feel that three minutes was enough time to give the presentation he
wished to provide. He wished to comment on future expenditures being considered by the City/County area.
He listed the issues that caused him concern, as follows: a new city hall/police department building, the
purchase of 65 acres in the south hills, the purchase of two properties downtown, and redevelopment in the
downtown area. He said it appeared that the city of Eugene was being made into a “San Francisco or
Ashland north.” He continued listing his issues: improvement to downtown parking, a proposal to raise
money through a three-cent gas tax for street repairs, an increase in garbage rates, and a wage hike for
County employees. He opined that the voters of Lane County had spoken against new taxes. He believed
that the voters wanted the “people in charge” to cut expenditures and “live within a budget.” He suggested
that the items he listed be “dropped from future consideration.”
Mr. Collins related experiences in his life in which he had to reduce expenditures and live within his budget.
Paul Romain
, 707 Southwest Washington Street, Suite 927, Portland, spoke on behalf of the Oregon
Petroleum Association. He conveyed the association’s opposition to the proposed gas tax increase. He
believed it should be submitted to a vote of the people. He said if the tax was imposed, the association
would gather signatures for an initiative to put the entire gas tax, both the proposed increase and the existing
five-cent per gallon tax, to a vote.
Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. No comments
were offered at this time.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 1
Regular Meeting
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
- February 26, 2007, Work Session
- April 9, 2007, Work Session
- April 9, 2007, City Council Meeting
- April 16, 2007, Workshop
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Approval of Funding for Affordable Housing Projects
D. Initiation of Land Use Code Amendment CA 07-1: Upon Amendment of Willakenzie Area
Plan, Incorporate Amended Policy Language into Eugene Code
E. Appointment to Lane Workforce Partnership Board
F. Appointment to Citizen Planning Committee for Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker
Park
G. Interim Appointment to Human Rights Commission
H. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of April 26, 2007
Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent
Calendar.
Councilor Bettman noted that she had submitted corrections to the minutes electronically. She pulled Item D
for discussion.
Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections to the minutes, without objection, approved.
Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item D,
passed unanimously, 8:0.
Regarding Item D, Councilor Bettman alleged that people who were wealthy enough to hire land use
planners and lawyers could “play this exclusive lottery” which, if they then win, is akin to “winning a
sweepstakes.” She felt it created extraordinary inequity in the community. She believed the zone change
would be a “major windfall” to the developer. She averred that what was proposed constituted both a
change in the use of the land within the node and a change in the intensity of use in the node. She indicated
she would oppose the item.
Roll call vote; the vote to approve Item D, initiation of a land use code amendment CA 07-1
to the Willakenzie Area Plan was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Poling, Solomon, and Clark
voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Zelenka, Taylor, and Bettman voting in opposition.
Mayor Piercy voted for Item D and it passed.
Mayor Piercy stated that Item G should not have been included in the motion to approve the Consent
Calendar as there was not a name associated with the appointment. She requested submittal of names for
appointment to the interim position on the Human Rights Commission.
Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Mo Young to fill the in-
terim position.
Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to substitute Mary Otten for the po-
sition.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 2
Regular Meeting
Councilor Bettman commented that it would be a tough choice.
Councilor Ortiz averred that Ms. Young would be a good choice, given her history with the Human Rights
Commission.
Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Ortiz, and Zelenka vot-
ing in opposition.
Roll call vote; the main motion passed, as amended, 7:1; Councilor Ortiz voting in opposi-
tion.
3. ACTION:
An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business Licenses; Repealing Section 3 of
Ordinance 20337; and Amending Section 3.467 of the Eugene Code, 1971
Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council
Bill 4941, an ordinance concerning motor vehicle fuel dealer’s business licenses.
City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that the item was one of the components of the transportation system
funding package. He recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to amend 3.467(b) of the proposed
ordinance to read:
“Pay a license tax computed on the basis of $0.07 (seven cents)…”
Councilor Clark felt it was important that the citizens of Eugene see that the City Council genuinely
recognized that solving the transportation facility problem was a priority. He believed that moving some
General Fund moneys toward this solution as the council moved into its priority-setting session would create
a more viable option that would attain more broad public support. He expressed concern that the council
action might otherwise jeopardize the solution. He urged his colleagues to support the amendment.
Councilor Poling indicated his support for the amendment in the event that the main motion passed. He
reiterated his opposition to the main motion.
Councilor Bettman believed there was majority support on the council to address the transportation issues.
She wanted to find an equitable and sustainable way to do so. She felt a carbon tax was the most sustain-
able approach to this funding. She indicated she would oppose the amendment.
In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Executive Director of the Public Works Department Kurt
Corey stated that the original ordinance was unchanged with the exception of two specific areas. He assured
her that it explicitly excluded the expenditure of funds on new capacity.
Councilor Zelenka stated that the transportation funding proposal was a package put together with a lot of
thought. He opposed the amendment. He added his feeling that the tax was the most appropriate funding
mechanism as it was most closely akin to a “carbon tax.”
Councilor Ortiz expressed her opposition to amending the motion. She wanted to support the funding
proposal package as set forth by the Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions. She
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 3
Regular Meeting
added that the voters would let the councilors know whether they appreciated the funding mechanism by
voting for or against the councilors in the next election.
Councilor Pryor stressed that the subcommittee had worked to compromise on the package. He said he had
not wanted to have a three-cent increase but all of the subcommittee members had issues with one or another
funding mechanism. He remarked that each of the subcommittee members had “held [his or her] nose” and
voted for a part of the package. He did not wish to continue haggling over the details because doing so
prevented the roads from being fixed. He opposed the amendment for this reason.
Councilor Clark commented that he was uncomfortable trying to change the package that the subcommittee
had worked hard to create. He appreciated the work that had gone into it. Nonetheless, he believed that the
constituents wanted the City to fix the problem for the amount of money it already had.
City Attorney Glenn Klein reviewed the Eugene City Code and affirmed that the ordinance specifically
stated that no revenue generated by the tax would be used to enhance transportation capacity.
Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Poling voting in favor.
Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to amend the ordinance by:
(a) deleting the phrase “and amending Section 3.467 of the Eugene Code, 1971” from
the caption; and
(b) deleting Section 1 and renumbering Sections 2, 3, and 4 to 1, 2, and 3.
Councilor Poling explained that the amendment would drop the sunset date on the two-cent increase,
maintaining the current gas tax at five cents per gallon.
Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting yes.
Councilor Poling, seconded by Council Pryor, moved to amend the ordinance by adding a
new Section 5 that provides:
“Notwithstanding Section 3 of this Ordinance, the amendment to Subsection 3.467(b)
as set forth in Section 1 shall not become effective unless it is approved by the voters of
the City at the May 2008 election.”
Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Clark voting yes.
Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Clark voting in opposi-
tion.
4. ACTION:
An Ordinance Concerning Wastewater Service and Amending Sections 6.406 and 6.411 of the
Eugene Code, 1971
Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council
Bill 4946, an ordinance concerning wastewater service. Roll call vote; the motion passed
unanimously, 8:0.
5. ACTION:
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 4
Regular Meeting
An Ordinance Concerning Setting Fees and Charges and Amending Sections 2.020, 2.442, and
6.411 of the Eugene Code, 1971
Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council
Bill 4947, an ordinance concerning setting fees and charges. Roll call vote; the motion
passed unanimously, 8:0.
The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 5
Regular Meeting
NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council – Work Session
DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 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
6/21 lt Draft to Staff
(Date & Initials)
Reviewed/Returned by Staff
7/2 bf Returned to Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording
7/2 ky Returned to Staff
________ Council Amendments Incorporated
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=
ATTACHMENT E
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
June 13, 2007
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer
Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor (participating via
telephone).
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council work session.
A. WORK SESSION: City Manager Cost of Living Adjustment and Merit Increase
City Manager Dennis Taylor said that the item was initially scheduled for later in the year but because he
was resigning his position effective July 26, 2007, he asked that the council consider granting the remainder
of the Step 6 increase he was eligible for in April, along with the 3.2 percent cost of living adjustment that
would be give to all non-represented employees on July 1, 2007.
Ms. Bettman stated that the background materials provided by Human Resources and Risk Services would
be invaluable when the council began its search for a new city manager. She was willing to support
whatever the council president recommended for City Manager Taylor’s compensation, but wanted the
motion to specify it was addressing the current city manager’s compensation. She said that many recruiters
indicated that compensation should be geared to the qualifications of a candidate and she wished to have a
recruiter’s input in the conversation regarding city manager compensation.
Ms. Ortiz agreed to include the revised wording in the motion she would offer the council.
Ms. Bettman asked how compensation for the interim city manager would be established. City Attorney
Glenn Klein replied that under the City Charter, the mayor had the authority to negotiate and sign a contract
with an interim city manager.
Mayor Piercy said she would be happy to receive input from the council and had already discussed the
matter with human resources staff.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adjust the current city manager’s
compensation as described in Option C.
Ms. Ortiz stated that she would be willing to provide a larger adjustment, as City Manager Taylor was a
very valuable employee, she would miss him and she did not feel the council had done him justice the
previous year.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 13, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Human Resource and Risk Services director Lauren Chouinard
said the current city manager’s base salary would be $149,308, including a full Step 6 increase and 3.2
percent adjustment. He did not have the figure for the full compensation package.
The motion passed, 7:0.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to expeditiously convene a subcom-
mittee of four councilors—two officers and two appointed by the mayor—to make
appropriate recommendations to the full council for hiring of a new city manager,
including selection of a national recruiter and a timeline and process for recruiting a
new city manager, culminating in a job offer by council break in December 2007.
Ms. Bettman encouraged the council to make a definitive decision and move forward to hire a new city
manager as there was considerable competition for city manager candidates. She hoped to see some of the
recruitment process improvements made when the police auditor was hired incorporated into the city
manager process.
Ms. Taylor joined the meeting by telephone at 12:10 p.m.
Ms. Bettman felt that the role of the recruiter should begin earlier in the process and the council subcommit-
tee should be involved in selecting a recruiter. She said many of the questions suggested by people in the
community during the last city manager recruitment process were still relevant and the public’s involvement
in the process was an important element.
Mr. Clark volunteered to be a member of the subcommittee. He agreed that the council should move
expeditiously, but was concerned with the December 2007 deadline. He said the decision was a very
important one and the council should consider it thoroughly and do it right.
Ms. Solomon preferred to have the full council consider the process before it was referred to a subcommit-
tee.
Mr. Zelenka indicated he was unclear about whether the motion intended for the subcommittee to develop
the recruitment process or actually conduct the process itself. Ms. Bettman said a work session would occur
when the subcommittee brought back a recommended process and timeline. She assumed that at the major
decision points, such as selecting a recruiter or improving a timeline, the council would take action. She
said a similar process had been effective when the police auditor was hired. She affirmed that major
decisions would be made by the council.
Mr. Zelenka liked the use of a subcommittee to work through the details of the process and volunteered to
serve on the subcommittee. He said that completing the process in December 2007 provided adequate time.
Mayor Piercy read Ms. Bettman’s motion to Ms. Taylor.
Ms. Taylor stated that she would support the motion and volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.
Mr. Pryor said the key element of Ms. Bettman’s proposal was that the subcommittee was advisory and did
have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the council, similar to the subcommittee on transportation.
He said if that was the spirit of the motion he was willing to support it and in his experience a six-month
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 13, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
timeline was adequate. He asked Ms. Solomon what she would want to accomplish at a work session prior
to formation of a subcommittee.
Ms. Solomon said she was concerned that the council needed to be clear about its expectations of a city
manager and wanted to have that discussion so councilors were on the same page. She would be willing to
have that discussion during the process.
Mr. Pryor agreed that a work session for that purpose was a good idea and he was committed to supporting
it, whether before or during the process.
Mr. Poling indicated he would support the motion as the police auditor process had proven to be effective,
but did want regular check-ins with the council as the subcommittee worked through the process details. He
said it appeared that councilors were in agreement on their expectations of a city manager as Ms. Solomon’s
poll did not receive enough support. He commended City Manager Taylor for an excellent job.
Mayor Piercy said she supported the motion and hiring a city manager was one of the most important
decisions that the council would make. She did not think a discussion of the City’s form of government was
necessary but there were things that should be discussed during the process and with the recruiter regarding
what the council was looking for in a city manager.
Ms. Bettman volunteered for the subcommittee. She explained that she included the recruiter at the
beginning of the process because her research had shown that many recruiters provided facilitation services
to city councils to help them identify and define their objectives for a city manager.
The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition.
B. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Piercy announced that the Eugene City Council would meet in Executive Session to deliberate with
staff designated to negotiate real property transactions. The Executive Session was held pursuant to ORS
192.660(2)(e).
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 13, 2007 Page 3
Work Session