Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: July 23, 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 May 14, 2007, Work Session, May 23, 2007, Work Session, May 29, 2007, Work Session, May 30, 2007, Work Session, and June 11, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.May 14, 2007, Work Session B.May 23, 2007, Work Session C.May 29, 2007, Work Session D.May 30, 2007, Work Session E.June 11, 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\M070723\S0707232A.doc ATTACHMENT A 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated her intention had been to place a motion to direct the Police Auditor to pursue the 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 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 they 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 1000 Friends of Oregon indicated support for the City of Eugene to conduct a buildable lands study. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark reported that he met with 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. 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 our 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 4 Work Session 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 5 Work Session 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 6 Work Session 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 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 7 Work Session 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 8 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 9 Work Session 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 his 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 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, MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 11 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 23, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Recommendations of the Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions Mayor Piercy thanked the subcommittee for the work that had gone into the proposal. She noted that City Manager Dennis Taylor and Assistant City Manager Angel Jones were indisposed and would not be attending the meeting. She stated that Executive Director of the Public Works Department Kurt Corey would provide an overview of the report. Mr. Corey conveyed City Manager Taylor’s regrets at not being able to attend the meeting in person. He explained that according to a report completed in 1998, the backlog of road repairs amounted to $32 million. He said the City Council determined in the year 2000 that it should assign a subcommittee of the Budget Committee to consider transportation funding; at that time the backlog had reached the sum of $67 million. He related that the subcommittee had come back with new information that $9 million in additional annual revenue would be required to make up for the backlog. He stated that two years after that point, the council adopted a three-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline, generating $2 million annually, and some changes were made to the Systems Development Charge (SDC) methodology. Continuing, Mr. Corey recalled that the gas tax had been increased by two cents per gallon in 2005. He said at present $4.5 million was incorporated into the capital preservation budget annually and in that time the backlog had grown to an estimated $170 million. He reported that there had been no increase in the state gas tax in 14 years and, in addition, the revenue sharing from Lane County was likely to fall from $2.5 million to zero as of July 1 of this year. He stated that in response to this, Mayor Piercy formed the subcommittee consisting of Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Ms. Bettman to review funding mechanisms and form a proposal to address the backlog. He highlighted the Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions Final Report. Mr. Pryor averred that the subcommittee ultimately posited funding solutions that were workable, usable, and reasonable. He thanked staff for all of the help provided to the subcommittee, noting that the facilitation provided by Management Analyst for the Public Works Department, Roland Hoskins, had been “masterful.” He declared that the council and the City either needed to fix the problem or stop complaining about it. He understood that not everyone would be completely happy with the proposal but he believed it was important MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 1 Work Session to move forward with the package in an expeditious fashion and not to tinker with it. He said the citizens should recognize the proposal as a thoughtful and considered approach. Mr. Zelenka thanked staff for the “great work.” He echoed Mr. Pryor’s sentiments with regard to moving forward with the package as proposed. He averred that the council should not waste $30 million talking about it. He reiterated that County funding was drawing to a close and the State gas tax had remained at the same level since 1993. He noted that the City of Salem had a $100 million backlog of road repairs and the City of Portland had a backlog of over $300 million. He cited an article in Time Magazine which reported that 93 percent of cities across the United States had this problem. He stressed that the proposal represented a “compromise package.” He commented that it might not be a fair package, but it was viable and doable. He urged his colleagues not to pull the package apart. He noted that money to be dedicated to the bicycle paths was included in the funding package in an effort to take a holistic approach to the transportation system. Ms. Bettman said she was the only member of the subcommittee who did not endorse the final package. She expressed surprise that it had been presented as a “total package.” Her impression had been that the subcommittee would identify the funding sources that it could support forwarding to the council or that the subcommittee opposed but was willing to forward to the council. She believed it was important to consider each component of the package separately. She opined that some were “supportable and some were not supportable” and each councilor should be able to make that choice. Ms. Bettman averred that the transportation system should be looked at in terms of how much service the City wanted to provide. She felt the subcommittee had looked at the problem from the standpoint of staff projections of how much was needed and how much was politically viable “to go after.” She opined that the total was malleable because it was based on the level of service. She thought the service should be reviewed during the budget process when all of the departments were being reviewed in order to determine what level of service the City wished to provide. Ms. Solomon said the subcommittee decided to hone in on items that had a nexus with the transportation system. She stated that the funding mechanisms were fair and equitable. She agreed with Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Pryor that the final report was not perfect but she considered it a true compromise. She echoed their support for retaining the proposal as a “package deal.” She believed that the proposal was a good start in the right direction in a process that would likely take 15 to 20 years. She hoped her colleagues would “honor the work” of the subcommittee. Mayor Piercy asked if the subcommittee had considered phasing in the strategies. She also wondered whether there had been conversations regarding adjustments to the cost to citizens based on income. Additionally she requested elaboration on the subcommittee’s deliberations that led them to recommend an eight-cent-per-gallon gas tax. With regard to phasing in the proposal, Mr. Corey explained that there was a goal of resolving the problem over a certain period of time. He said the subcommittee lit upon the idea of working on the backlog over a period of 15 or more years and in some ways this was tantamount to phasing it in. Mr. Corey said it was generally recognized that the recommended solutions would be subject to debate as they moved forward and because of this, the subcommittee had not gotten into the details such as whether people could get rebates or reduced rates. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 2 Work Session With regard to the gas tax component, Mr. Corey related that it was generally perceived to be a mechanism that had worked well over the previous four years and that it was easy to implement administratively. He noted that the three- to five-cent differential between the City of Eugene and surrounding communities had not been perceived as resulting in market flight. Mr. Pryor commented that phasing in a problem that cost $15 million per year would ultimately increase the cost. Regarding income, he related that the subcommittee discussed a number of mitigations. He noted that if the council chose a parking space basis for a utility fee there could be mitigations of the required spaces. He said the subcommittee wanted to get the basic package together and assumed that details would be worked out through the process. He understood that the gas tax would be controversial; people would be unhappy with an eight-cent-per-gallon tax. He underscored that if the council chose to reduce the increase, the cost would have to be shifted to another funding mechanism. Mr. Zelenka agreed that phasing in the proposal would make the problem bigger, but he believed that it did have “sort of a natural phase in” because the work would have to occur incrementally. Regarding the gas tax, he believed that this was a proxy for a carbon tax which he strongly supported. He pointed out that people could keep from paying the tax by walking and bicycling more. Mr. Clark thanked the subcommittee members for their work. His chief concern was that though the council would want the residents to see the proposal as a package they would most likely perceive it as “five new taxes.” He felt the council needed to address citizen distrust by reducing the amount of the gas tax and adding a component from the General Fund. Mr. Poling conveyed his appreciation for the subcommittee’s work. He acknowledged the need for a funding source for the growing problem of transportation infrastructure maintenance and preservation. However, he said, he would be hard-pressed to support anything that had not been put to a vote of city residents. He predicted that an increase in the gas tax ran the risk of voter repeal. He felt the amount of money the gas tax increase would bring in could be added to the local option levy. Mr. Poling recalled that when he campaigned in 2002, he had heard numerous complaints about the potholes in city streets. He said he wanted all along to provide curb-to-curb repairs, but the proposal would address the street, bicycle paths, and trees. He felt people were saying they wanted better streets and because of this it would be hard for him to support anything but curb-to-curb repairs. He believed that without the gas tax included, the package would cost approximately $171 per year for the average household. He added that he felt singling out waste haulers as a funding mechanism was not fair. Ms. Taylor said she had suggested that the subcommittee “keep in touch” with the council and let the council know what they were considering. She asserted that otherwise they ran the risk of having the council oppose all of the elements of the package. She supported separating the five funding components for consideration. Ms. Taylor observed that there was no tax for commuters in the package. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that it included a street utility fee. Ms. Taylor thought a vehicle registration fee would be most fair. She acknowledged that it was not within the City’s purview to institute such a fee. She thought the City should address it on a “bigger level” in order to work to change the legislation so that the City would be allowed to institute a fee. She added her support for discussing the five funding mechanisms in the package separately. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz also wished to thank the subcommittee and staff for their work. She intended to support all of the funding recommendations but she wanted to discuss them separately. She averred that it was time to move ahead to work on the backlog of transportation maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman related that the subcommittee had reached consensus in its desire to not use General Fund money for the backlog. She noted that the concerns her colleagues brought up had all been discussed by the subcommittee. Regarding the gas tax, she agreed with Mr. Zelenka that it was akin to a carbon tax. She averred that it would hit commuters as well as residents. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to separate the motion for today’s meeting so the council could consider each taxing/fee mechanism separately. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Poling voting in favor; Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the mo- tion and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Poling asked how the second mechanism, a utility fee based on parking spaces, would be implemented. Mr. Corey replied that the subcommittee generally conceded that there was no inventory of parking spaces. He believed it would apply to residential parking and non-residential parking. Mr. Poling surmised that the average household would pay $60 per year for this fee. He asked how many times he would have to pay for the parking spaces in front of his house “before they were paid off.” He added that it may be time to see if the County would work with the City to pass a vehicle registration fee. Ms. Solomon wished to respond to the issue raised that the subcommittee’s proposal did not provide a curb- to-curb solution. She said as a group the subcommittee had compromised and decided to take a look at the transportation system as a whole. She added that the subcommittee discussed at length different ways of imposing fees on heavy vehicles and determined that there was not a practical way to do so. She related that a lot of the heavy delivery trucks come from out of the area. She thought it could have been captured with the transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) because it had been based on trip generation. Mr. Pryor found the discussion to be interesting. He reiterated that there were elements in the proposal that he did not like and would prefer not to do. He underscored that the proposal contained the funding mechanisms that had garnered enough votes to pass. He said it was what they could do as opposed to what they “preferred to do.” Mr. Pryor noted that the only heavy vehicles that could be easily identified and assessed were the garbage haulers. He underscored that garbage haulers drove on every street of the City and worked every day. Mr. Pryor said while curb-to-curb repairs were important and he supported this approach, he had to give on that idea. He encouraged his colleagues to be flexible as well. Mr. Clark reiterated his contention that some money should be drawn from the General Fund. Mr. Zelenka commented that with a looming multi-million dollar deficit he was not willing to take money from the General Fund. He assured his colleagues that the transportation funding addressed the concerns regarding curb-to-curb repairs. He said if the package was exclusively curb-to-curb it would be “no deal” at the subcommittee level. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka noted, regarding the waste haulers, that the biggest waste hauling company in the City worked 19 hours per day, seven days a week, and caused a lot of damage. He said the garbage haulers were not concerned with the fee as it would be a pass-through. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to increase the City of Eugene’s motor vehicle fuel tax by three cents per gallon to the eight-cent level to generate an additional $2 million annually. Mr. Clark moved to amend the motion to send the item back to the committee for adjust- ment. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman asked if there would be a public hearing on the gas tax. Mr. Corey replied that a public hearing had been conducted earlier in the year. He said action was currently scheduled for May 29, absent direction to the contrary. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Jerry Lidz assured her that the only element of the ordinance that would be changed was the sunset clause, which would be removed, and that the tax would be increased. He stressed that nothing else would be changed. Ms. Bettman indicated her support for the motion. She felt the fuel tax was a “quintessential carbon tax.” Mr. Poling preferred to drop the sunset clause for the two-cent increase implemented two years earlier and not to increase the amount of the gas tax above it. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Lidz stated that only the gas tax would be acted upon at the May 29 meeting. Mr. Poling said he would oppose the gas tax. He indicated that he would move to amend it at that time. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the gas tax to change the three-cent increase to a two-cent increase, changing the eight-cent level to seven cents, and that the dif- ference in funding be made up by increasing the capital local option levy. Mr. Pryor opined that this was the price the council would pay for separating the motion. He felt the recommendation of the subcommittee was beginning to fall apart. He said the difficulty that lay in what Mr. Clark was proposing was that by putting it into the bond it would not be an ongoing funding mechanism. He stressed that the package had been a blend of one-time funding sources and ongoing funding sources. Mr. Clark reiterated his feeling that it would be a gesture of goodwill to take some of the funding from the General Fund. Mr. Pryor offered a friendly amendment to change the motion so that the difference in fund- ing would be made up with General Fund money. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Zelenka said he had initially preferred to impose a larger gas tax. He could not support decreasing the amount of the gas tax and offsetting this with General Fund money which came from property taxes. He thought the tax would encourage people to get off the streets and “out of their cars.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment. Ms. Taylor commented that she would support the main motion and not the amendment. The motion to amend failed, 5:3; Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in favor. The main motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Clark and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to establish a street utility fee based on parking spaces to generate annual net revenue of approximately $6 million, with $150,000 per year dedicated to funding traffic calming measures (estimated to cost the average household $4.50 to $5 per month). Ms. Taylor asked how the fees would be assessed and collected and how much it would cost to collect them. Mr. Corey reiterated that no work had been done on the methodology. He said this was a concept at this point that had come from the subcommittee. Ms. Taylor moved to delete the residential component from the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman said she had opposed the original TSMF but she was willing to support this item because she felt it combined sustainability issues with the nexus of the charge. She believed that parking equaled use of the system. She related that the subcommittee’s assumption was that the options would be brought back to the council for further consideration and determination of what the phasing would be and what the actual ordinance would look like. Mr. Zelenka did not agree that it was a parking tax; rather, it was a street utility fee. He said it was an attempt to get people to pay because of their use of the streets. He averred that the TSMF had died from “its own weight” because it was too complicated. He stated that the subcommittee considered numerous mechanisms to capture money from the use of streets and this model had proven to be the best one for the city. Ms. Solomon noted that two other municipalities use this model. She believed that the City could work from their models to develop its own. Mr. Poling affirmed that passing the motion merely moved it forward for further discussion. He questioned how a person who lived on a corner would be assessed given that he or she would have “two front yards.” Mr. Pryor said the utility fee was attractive to him because the City could charge the tax to everyone. He noted that he did not envision charging people for street frontage and curbs. Mr. Zelenka commented that there were 19 cities in Oregon that used some kind of utility fee; the City of Eugene would not be “reinventing the wheel.” He agreed with Mr. Pryor that the fee should be simple to administer, but he underscored that at this time the council was voting on the concept and not the details. Mr. Poling said he would support the item for discussion purposes only. He requested that the Mayor consider postponing the joint meeting with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) scheduled for May 30 in order to finish the present discussion, should it not conclude prior to adjournment of the present meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark indicated that he would vote for the item in order to forward it for further discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to institute a street and bike path lighting fee to generate sufficient funds to operate and maintain and provide for reasonable expansion of Eugene’s street and bike/pedestrian path lighting system (estimated to cost the average household $1.50 per month). Ms. Bettman did not support the item. She asserted that some people did not want street lighting and she opposed charging people for what they do not want. She hoped another funding mechanism could be determined. Ms. Solomon observed that this funding mechanism had been implemented in other municipalities successfully. She ascertained from Mr. Corey that it could be structured to include an ‘opt-out.’ Mr. Corey related that this mechanism worked well in the jurisdiction from which he had come. He viewed it as an efficient way to deal with the “ups and downs” of energy costs and to provide the service. Mr. Zelenka stated that he would support it in part because it took $850,000 from the Road Fund and made it available for another use. Mr. Poling asked what the procedure would be to do so. Mr. Lidz replied that the original motion directed the City Manager to develop the idea further and bring a proposal back before the council. Mr. Poling reiterated his preference to address the need for curb-to-curb repairs as this was what the constituents wanted. For this reason, he said, he would not support the motion. Ms. Bettman averred that a person who lived on a minor arterial street could not opt out of the street lighting fee. She could not support the motion because many people would be “subjected” to the street lighting fee whether or not they wanted their street lit. Mr. Corey pointed out that street lighting on arterial and collector streets was part of the City’s design standards. He said there would not be an ‘opt out’ for residents if it would be in conflict with other adopted standards. Ms. Ortiz underscored that there would be more time to refine the item. Mr. Clark expressed his support for the motion because he believed it was a political compromise that would take the $850,000 from the Road Fund and free it for curb-to-curb repairs. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to seek voter approval in May 2008 for a capital local option levy to generate approximately $6 million-per-year over a 10-yer period dedi- cated to pavement capital preservations projects, including approximately $350,000 per year for capital bike path preservation (estimated to cost the average homeowner $80 per year). MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Solomon underscored that this element of the package required voter approval. She appreciated this mechanism because the money would be taken out only as the City needed it. She said she would not make a motion at this time but she hoped that the council would consider increasing the amount of the local option levy from $7 million to $7.5 million. Ms. Bettman indicated her support for the funding mechanism. She reiterated her assertion that what had put the City in this position had been a prioritization of the building of new capital construction over operations and maintenance. Mr. Zelenka supported the motion because it required voter approval. He believed it to be the least fair funding mechanism of the five as nearly half of the people who use the roads did not live in the city of Eugene. He opined that the City had too much reliance on property taxes and needed to diversify its revenue. Ms. Taylor indicated her support for the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to implement a solid waste collection fee sur- charge to generate approximately $1 million annually (estimated to cost the average house- hold $1 per month). Ms. Taylor opposed the motion. She felt it could cause some people to decide they could not afford to pay to have their garbage hauled away. Ms. Bettman asserted that it was unfair to single out garbage haulers given that other heavy trucks utilized the roads. She said she had “vigorously” opposed the funding mechanism at the subcommittee level. Mr. Clark opined that the funding mechanism was “too arbitrary.” He did not think he could support it. Mr. Zelenka differed, noting that the garbage haulers did not think it was an onerous funding mechanism. He believed the nexus was there. He reiterated that the largest garbage hauler in the City utilized 85 trucks that traveled every street in the City. He stressed that these trucks traversed streets that no other trucks visited. He did not believe charging an extra dollar per month would cause people to begin dumping their garbage elsewhere. He also wished to note that the garbage haulers gained nothing from the fee. Mr. Pryor recognized the principle behind the funding mechanism. He underscored that it was not administratively possible to assess other heavy trucks. He added that the garbage haulers that had been contacted had indicated they did not oppose the fee. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the meeting by five minutes. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Pryor. She pointed out that the City of Eugene already received $2 million per year from the statewide weight/mile tax. Ms. Taylor averred that charging a dollar a month garbage hauling fee would not reduce the amount of driving and would not stop any damage. She disagreed with people who did not consider a dollar to be very MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 8 Work Session much money. She felt it could be the tipping point at which some people would decide they could not afford garbage service anymore. Mr. Clark commented that the value of the diversity of income streams was offset with the political resistance to complicating the solution. He thought simplifying the solution had a greater political value. He said while the garbage haulers would not mind the fee he believed the citizens would. He also felt the fee added to the taxes citizens paid while the people in the Santa Clara area remained exempt from it. Ms. Bettman observed that the funding mechanism did not charge a fee to the haulers; it was a pass-through charged to the homeowners. Mr. Poling asked if everyone would be charged the fee. Mr. Lidz replied that all entities utilizing a garbage service would be charged a fee equal to five percent. Mayor Piercy said she wanted to support the whole package but could not support forwarding a portion of it with less than majority support. The vote on the motion was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting in support and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted against the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Zelenka stated that the funding that the garbage hauling fee should come from somewhere. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to split the $1 million that the garbage hauler fee would have garnered between the street utility fee and the capital local option levy. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson ) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 29, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council work session. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted that City Manager Dennis Taylor had resigned his position effective July 26, 2007. She thanked City Manager Taylor for his service to the community. She said that the council would be developing a process for hiring a new city manager and discussing transition issues. Mayor Piercy reported that the Eugene Policy Department held an awards ceremony on May 16 and she commended those who were recognized during the ceremony for their contributions. Mr. Pryor looked forward to working with City Manager Taylor during the remainder of his time with the City and wished him well. He reported that the Human Services Commission was relieved that one more year of federal funding through the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act would be available to the County and the drastic cuts that had been contemplated were averted for the time being. He said the budgeting process that the commission had gone through would be useful in developing future budgets. Ms. Taylor passed along a complaint about buses and vans idling in front of the Hult Center and asked how that practice could be consistent with the City’s sustainability policies. She said she recently attended a meeting of the Human Development Steering Committee of the National League of Cities (NLC). She said the committee discussed immigration, education and health care and was supportive of the guest worker program. She said the committee passed resolutions recommending to the NLC Board support for immigration rights of same-sex couples and Federal Drug Administration regulation of tobacco as a drug. She was disappointed that support for the immigration rights recommendation was not unanimous. Ms. Taylor said that more cities were becoming involved in education and there was general agreement on the committee that education was necessary to achieve a healthy community economically and socially. She said that preschool was advocated for all children and the committee was discussing high school reform as well. She said that expanding health care to all children less than 18 years was strongly supported. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling thanked City Manager Taylor for all he had done for the City. He hoped the council would hold a work session before proceeding with the hiring process for a new city manager as there were some members of the council who seemed to favor changing the form of government. He was not advocating change but thought that discussion should occur early in the process. Ms. Solomon echoed Mr. Poling’s request for a discussion of the City’s form of government. She indicated she was not in favor of a change, but she agreed there was a need for public discussion of the matter and would likely request a work session. Ms. Solomon reported that she attended Public Works Day with her sons and praised the event. She said there were many activities for children and adults and she planned to attend again next year. Mr. Clark expressed his sadness at City Manager Taylor’s departure and said it had been a pleasure to work with him. He had also attended the EPD awards ceremony and was proud of the force and impressed by the caliber of the awards recipients. He had also attended a Public Safety Coordinating Council subcommittee meeting on juvenile justice and there was much discussion of how the County’s financial problems would affect those services. He said the Convention & Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALCO) was also concerned about the County’s budget problems. Mr. Zelenka thanked City Manager Taylor for his years of service in the public sector. He displayed a plastic bag and plastic drinking cup that were made from materials that were compostable and biodegrad- able. He commended Rexius Forest Products and Market of Choice for their forward thinking in using those products and encouraged other businesses in the community to do so. He hoped that was an issue that the sustainability manager and commission would explore. Ms. Ortiz announced that the We Are Bethel Celebration would be held on June 2 at the Petersen Barn. She recollected that she originally met City Manager Taylor at the same event shortly after he came to Eugene. She thanked him for his service to the community and said he would be greatly missed by employees, who spoke very highly of him, and by the council. She said that a report would be presented later in the week by Union Pacific on contamination of ground water. She said there had also been a report on the J.H. Baxter plant and whether there was any relationship to the incidence of cancer in the area. She reported that Lee Mun Wah conducted a workshop for communities of color and it was well attended by people from across the spectrum. She commented that the communities of color were a very diverse group. City Manager Taylor remarked that while there was never a good time for a transition, he would be leaving at the end of a fiscal year and many of the council’s goals and activities would be completed or well under way. He said it had been an incredible honor and privilege to serve as Eugene’s city manager and he regarded it as the capstone of his 38 years of public service. He had never worked with a more dedicated and talented workforce and was overwhelmed by the talent and generosity in the community. He would provide full measure until his last day on the job. Mayor Piercy said she would present a hiring process for the council’s consideration and would speak to each councilor regarding appointing an interim city manager. Ms. Bettman thanked City Manager Taylor for his years of hard work and wished him well. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the police auditor to bring forward to the council for approval at the June 11 or June 13 work session a proposal for an admin- MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 2 Work Session istrative investigation of the environmental factors surrounding the prolonged criminal acts of officers Magana and Lara. The proposal will include a scope of work, timeline and cost. Ms. Bettman said that an administrative investigation in such a situation was standard in every jurisdiction; some investigations were done in conjunction with and some occurred after the criminal investigation. She acknowledged that the City had conducted some studies and reviews, such as the ICM/PERF study, but those were not administrative investigations. She said now that police oversight had been implemented with the hiring of a police auditor, the council had the opportunity to finish the job by closing the record on what happened and moving forward. She urged the council to take its responsibility to ensure accountability seriously. She said the elapsed time since the criminal investigation had been orchestrated by the admini- stration and she was happy to grant immunity to personnel in the Police Department in order to complete an administrative investigation and close the book on the matter. Ms. Ortiz asked if the City Manager felt that no administrative investigation had been done yet. City Manager Taylor replied that he believed an administrative investigation had occurred. He had requested, when one of the officers had been indicted and the other was under investigation, that victims come forward and he and the police chief had reviewed information at every step along the way. He said that information developed during discovery was also reviewed. He felt that an administrative review had been ongoing since the day the officers were identified and there had been no evidence to warrant further disciplinary action, either administratively or criminally, against any individuals other than the two who were indicted and convicted. Ms. Ortiz related that she had worked on establishing the police auditor function along with Ms. Bettman and, while she understood Ms. Bettman’s purpose, she could not support the motion as she felt that it would not be in the interest of moving forward. She preferred to have the auditor focus on other issues that she felt would better serve the community. Ms. Taylor thought some members of the public and the council still did not understand how those activities could have occurred without anyone knowing about them. Ms. Bettman explained her motion would direct the auditor to bring back to the council a scope of work and costs. She said the ordinance establishing the auditor function granted the authority to contract out work and she hoped that was what would happen. She said the auditor could answer the question about whether an administrative investigation had occurred, instead of the City Manager. She pointed out that the council would be considering resource issues for the Police Department later in the meeting and she did not take her motion lightly. She felt that the department’s credibility had not yet been established with the community and questions about how two officers could have failed to perform their jobs and gone undetected had to be answered before addressing the issue of additional resources. Mr. Zelenka said he was interested in the police auditor’s opinion on the issue and was surprised that no other police personnel had been disciplined as a result of the Magana/Lara incident. He thought the Police Department should do a better job of informing the public about what changes had occurred since then. He felt there were many people in the community who were still unsettled about the situation and having the police auditor look into it and offer an opinion could help address those concerns. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Ortiz for her comments. He said that his discussions in the community reflected the feeling that the department had handled the problem appropriately and people were aware of some of the changes within the department. He thought it was time to move forward instead of continuing to drag out the issue. He did not feel another administrative review was necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz clarified with Ms. Bettman that she was asking the police auditor to return with a proposal. She said she was not supportive of having the auditor reexamine everything that had happened in the department over the past ten years. Mr. Clark asked if there were any legal concerns with the review Ms. Bettman proposed and whether there were any potential costs to the City if the review went forward. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he would need to research the question and provide a written response to the council. Mr. Zelenka remarked that there were serious crimes committed by officers Magana and Lara and a large segment of the City’s population did not have confidence in the EPD because they did not have what they needed to move forward. He said the police auditor system now in place could help to identify the contributing environment that allowed the problem to occur and what changes had been made that would prevent a similar problem in the future. Ms. Solomon stated that it was not necessary to conduct an investigation in order to identify changes; the Police Commission and police chief were very capable of discussing those changes with the council and community. She saw no positive results from conducting another investigation and would not support the proposal. City Manager Taylor reminded the council of a number of studies and reviews of the Police Department that the City had commissioned over the past several years. He said the results of an independent review of the department’s progress on recommendations in the ICM/PERF report would be provided to the council shortly. Ms. Bettman asserted that the earlier reports and studies were not administrative investigations and questioned why there had been such a delay in conducting one. She thought the delay reinforced what she believed was part of the original problem: denial that there was a problem. She felt the community expected the police auditor to conduct an investigation and urged the council’s support. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to implement the qualified but unfunded Neighborhood Matching Grants projects #9 through #14, for a total of $16,125, to be funded using FY06-07 council contingency money. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council work session and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Preliminary Financing Plan City Manager Taylor introduced Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge to present financing plan options as a preliminary step to amending the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan in order to accomplish the West Broadway redevelopment project. Ms. Cutsogeorge used a slide presentation to illustrate the potential finance plan, the downtown plan amendment process, and proposed amendments. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that action on the amendments was MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 4 Work Session being requested in order to adhere to the schedule established for the West Broadway project, as it took approximately 100 days to process them. She said that under the preliminary approach, the City would provide about $24 million of the $186 million project cost by assisting with land acquisition, purchasing a turn-key garage and providing a low interest housing loan. She noted that urban renewal was the most significant tool the City anticipated using for the project, for a total of $13.5 million or 60 percent of the public participation in the project. Ms. Cutsogeorge reviewed the downtown urban renewal plan’s history and the regulatory requirements for urban renewal plans. She described the process required for a substantial amendment, which was anticipated to take about four months to complete. She said staff was proposing three amendments: increase maximum indebtedness, extend termination date and expand boundaries. She said that increasing maximum indebtedness was actually increasing the spending limit; the current cap was $33 million, of which $4.6 million remained, and that would need to be increased to accommodate the West Broadway project. She reviewed the options for increasing maximum indebtedness, ranging from $40 million to $115 million. Continuing, Ms. Cutsogeorge said the recommendation was to change the termination date from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030, in order to allow for a 20-year debt repayment and maximize the financial capacity of the district to pay for the redevelopment effort. She said not extending the termination date could require looking for funding elsewhere in the City to compensate for a smaller financial capacity in the district. She reviewed potential boundary expansion options, but noted that it was not necessary to expand the boundary in order to increase maximum indebtedness; however, since the same process was required for such an amendment it was an opportunity for the council to consider what areas might benefit from tax increment financing in the future. She said that potential expansions included a north expansion, south expansion and a combined expansion that included both areas; staff recommended the combined expansion option. Mayor Piercy questioned why the council would move forward with a plan amendment before there had been a community debate on West Broadway redevelopment. City Manager Taylor replied that the staff proposals were consistent with the council’s earlier discussion regarding a timeline and would allow the City to move forward with the required actions to put in place a financial plan. Ms. Cutsogeorge pointed out that the council was not being asked to amend the plan, but rather to forward the plan with proposed amend- ments to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts for consideration. She said feedback from those bodies would be provided to the council to inform its discussion and decision sometime in August. She said that staff would also schedule a public hearing on the plan before the council in July 2007. Mr. Poling was pleased to see the recommendations from staff to move the process forward and obtain the information the council needed to make a decision. He felt the timing was opportune and favored forward- ing the proposal to the Planning Commission. Ms. Bettman said she did not believe that anyone outside of the isolated groups of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and City Hall would regard the proposed increased spending limit of $128 million as a justifiable expenditure or support the transfer of funding from the General Fund, community colleges, and schools to private developers. She perceived it as an admission that the redevelopment proposal would not be a cure-all and more development would be necessary at astronomical costs to the community. She questioned why the amendments were not proposed when the urban renewal plan was modified in 2004. Mr. Zelenka said he understood the efficiency of including a boundary expansion, but felt the expansion issue would muddy the waters and make the process more confusing. He felt that amending the urban renewal plan and developing a financing plan were complicated enough without including a boundary expansion. He recommended moving forward with the minimum necessary to accomplish the West MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Broadway project. He asked how the $10 million for administration would be used. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the funds would be used for all of the administrative functions necessary to support the district over the life of the plan. Mr. Zelenka asked what type of activities would cause the City’s financial role in the project to increase. Mr. Klein replied that one thing might be the need for the urban renewal agency to acquire the property for resale to the developers. Mr. Zelenka asked for an analysis of activities that could increase the City’s financial involvement. He asked how much was currently available in the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated the current balance of unexpended loan funds was approximately $2.1 million. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification of the reference on page 19 of the agenda packet to the urban renewal agency taking on a higher level of debt to be guaranteed by the City’s full faith and credit. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that it involved capturing a future tax increment for properties not actually on the tax roll at the time the project was implemented and backing that with the General Fund. She said that had occurred with the library project. She said that the finance plan would evolve over time as the project moved forward. Mr. Clark thought the City was either growing or dying and he realized that the term “growing” made many people uncomfortable. He wanted the project to move forward in a manner that engaged as many members of the community as possible. He was reluctant to expand the boundary as a part of the plan amendment and preferred to focus on creating the necessary tools for redeveloping West Broadway. He asked if eliminating the boundary expansion would in any way imperil the West Broadway project. Ms. Cutsogeorge said it would not. Ms. Taylor expressed concern with extending the termination date for the plan and wondered when the tax revenues would be available for other purposes. She felt the project was being presented as a “done deal” and questioned the purpose of the committee if a decision had already been made. She liked KWG Development Partners’ work and supported their project at the Sears site, but was not willing to turn over to them the fate of existing businesses on West Broadway, the future of downtown and huge amounts of taxpayer money from current and future taxpayers. Mayor Piercy reiterated that whatever decisions the council made regarding amending the urban renew plan did not commit the City to a particular course of action; it would simply provide tools and options in a timely manner. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to forward to the Planning Commission and over- lapping taxing districts the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with the draft plan and report included in attachments D and E, except that the amendments shall include an increased maximum indebtedness of $40 million, for a total of $73 million and an extension of the termination date from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030. Ms. Bettman asked why a hearing on the specific West Broadway projects would be held in July before the advisory committee had presented its work. Ms. Cutsogeorge commented that similar to the urban renewal plan amendment process, significant lead time was required in order to use the HUD Section 108 loan. She said in order to preserve that option, some information about the project for which the loan might be used would need to be presented in July. She said that did not mean the entire project; it could simply mean property acquisition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked what costs were not included in the maximum debt calculation. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that interest on debt was not included and that amount would depend on how much debt was involved for the project. She estimated that could be approximately $8 million. Ms. Bettman asked if the BEDI grant and HUD Section 108 loan were also in addition to the $40 million in increased indebtedness. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the BEDI grant was a City grant and the agency would not expend those funds, and the HUD Section 108 loan would be a City loan repaid from urban renewal funds and counted against the $40 million. Ms. Bettman asked why staff did not propose that the urban renewal district sunset in 2024 and allow those properties within the district to return to the tax rolls. She said a new urban renewal district could be created for other redevelopment in the downtown area. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the 2030 termination date was proposed to accommodate the West Broadway project, not a future project. She said the intent was to accommodate the 20-year debt and maximize the district’s ability to pay for the West Broadway project. Mr. Poling commented that expanding the boundary would be an opportunity to move forward but he was willing to eliminate that amendment if it meant the West Broadway initiative could proceed. He said modification of the urban renewal plan in 2004 was done before there were specific plans and proposals for downtown redevelopment. He would support the motion. Mr. Zelenka wanted to have all of the financial tools in place to proceed in September and recognized there were significant lead times required for some of those tools. He was supportive of the minimal increase in indebtedness for the West Broadway project only, but questioned the extension of the termination date. He preferred a shorter timeframe for repaying the debt so that the benefit of redevelopment could go to the City. He asked what the impact would be of not extending that date. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that urban renewal would be the primary financial tool used to pay for the redevelopment project. She said that the longer the repayment period was, the larger the financial capacity of the district would be. She said that $13.5 million in urban renewal debt was at the high end of what the district could accommodate using a 20-year repayment schedule on the debt. She said that a shorter period would reduce the amount that could be borrowed. Mr. Zelenka asked for calculations on the decrease in district capacity with shorter repayment periods. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to include financing options if the termination date was not extended. Ms. Ortiz asked for clarification of the amendment. Mr. Zelenka explained that he wanted the benefit of the tax increment to return to the entire City as soon as possible and extending the date would delay that for six more years. He wanted to understand the financial impact of shorter repayment period. Mr. Klein said that staff would perform that analysis without an amendment to the motion. Mr. Zelenka withdrew his amendment. Ms. Bettman cited language in the agenda packet that indicated urban renewal borrowings were more risky than general city borrowings. She said she had supported an earlier proposal to begin work within the City’s existing means on downtown redevelopment and would not support the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 7 Work Session The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the City Council work session. C. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal – Police Initiative City Manager Taylor introduced Police Chief Robert Lehner to discuss the Police Initiative Council Goal and seek further guidance as the Eugene Police Department (EPD) action plan was developed. Chief Lehner discussed the first draft of an action plan to address the council’s strategic priority goal of increasing police staffing with a special focus on supporting community policing and reducing property crime. He provided a brief overview of earlier studies intended to determine the department’s staffing needs to provide policing services to the community and noted that a report from the Magellan Corporation, which addressed those staff issues, was included in the agenda packet. Chief Lehner said the first item on the action plan was to examine the Magellan Report in depth and gain an understanding of how various activities affected staffing needs. As an example, he said that while response times did have an impact on staffing, it was not as great as the impact of the types of calls to which the department responded. He said the department had not responded to routine traffic accidents for a very long time and that was a service expectation that existed in most other communities. He said the initial work would identify those policy decisions that needed to be made on behalf of the community and present them to the council. Chief Lehner stated that the County’s financial situation had a dramatic effect on the types of calls to which EPD responded and the nature of the response and that would be a major consideration in staffing decisions. He said the report also included a comprehensive discussion of the University of Oregon issue and its effect on the department’s ability to provide community policing services. He said the situation in Eugene was unique, and worse, than almost any other university jurisdiction in the country. He had begun a discussion with the University about policing services and shared costs. He said all of those issues would be presented to the Police Commission and the City Council for discussion and decisions about the level and mix of policing services to be provided. Mayor Piercy asked how the Police Commission interfaced with the report recommendations. She understood that the goal would be achieved incrementally over time, but wanted to see a “map” of how the department would move toward providing community policing. Chief Lehner said much of the Police Commission’s work over the last few years had been to provide input to the department’s strategic plan and those assumptions were built into the model Magellan Corporation used for its work. He said the depart- ment was at a substantial staffing deficit to reach its goals and the commission could play a critical role in focusing community discussion on what was important, as the appetite for services was greater than the department’s capacity. He felt the commission could help to manage public expectations. Ms. Bettman asked if the Police Commission would have an active role in analyzing data and identifying issues. Chief Lehner said the commission had not yet seen the data, but felt it was appropriate for the commission to discuss and prioritize services. Ms. Bettman asked if references to staffing meant staff in the entire department or only in the model components. Chief Lehner replied that meant staff in the whole department, as even the administrative MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 8 Work Session components were affected by changes in staffing and service levels. He said an example was the effect of certain types of police staffing on the courts and other parts of the system. Ms. Bettman asked how comparisons were done with other jurisdictions when the study only looked at certain components of the department. She asked if the comparison included police personnel per capita or police personnel total resource per capita and how those were incorporated in the assumptions. Chief Lehner replied that police per capita and similar measures were very broadly used for comparison, but were not a good way to determine actual staff requirements because of the considerable variations among cities. He said it was a broad indicator of resources necessary to address the public safety issues in a community. He said Eugene had a very high property crime rate compared to other cities and one of the lowest officers per population ratios and, while that was useful from a broad perspective, actual staffing needs were workload-dependent, not ratio-dependent. Regarding the University of Oregon issue, Ms. Bettman asked if the department would consider a legislative remedy if discussions with the University were not productive. Chief Lehner said a legislative remedy would be preferable and he was working with the University on what legislation might be needed to provide the necessary capacity. Ms. Bettman requested clarification on how comparisons were made when the department only looked at certain components. She asked if ICMA (International City Managers Association) would only look at those components as well. Chief Lehner said that comparison had not yet been done; Magellan had compared staffing that was workload driven rather than support staff. He noted there were major discrepancies that would need to be better understood. Mr. Pryor expressed his appreciation for the department’s efforts to understand staffing needs, service levels and community expectations. He said those should be identified at three levels—optimal, minimal and functional—and the functional level could be defined by the community’s and City’s perspectives, along with the cost. He felt the department’s work would be extremely helpful to the council’s decision-making process. Mr. Clark thanked EPD for its work and for the Magellan report. He had been concerned for some time about the department’s ability to meet basic needs and agreed that increasing staffing was a substantial goal. He was stunned by the comparison to staffing in other jurisdictions and commended the department for doing a great job with current resources. He wanted to have policy discussions at the Police Commission and council levels about the type of policing that was expected prior to the next round of budget priority setting. Mr. Poling indicated he was pleased the University of Oregon issue was being discussed. He questioned whether there was something else the City could do to move the matter forward. Chief Lehner said it was a political issue in the State that would require a long discussion and serious work. Ms. Ortiz thanked Chief Lehner for his presentation. She said her concern was that no matter what staffing levels the apartment achieved, there was still a problem with the capacity of jails and the ability of the system to deal with drug addiction, which was the cause of most property crimes. She hoped that the discussion would expand to include how to address those issues. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s remarks. He asked if the University paid for the EPD officers policing the campus area. Chief Lehner said there were contracts in place to pay for policing costs, but that did take away from the department’s capacity. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 9 Work Session City Manager Taylor said the discussions with the University involved the nature and level of staffing through their Department of Public Safety, transition issues and legislative strategies involving sworn officers in the university system. He said it was unique for the City’s officers to be the sworn officers who responded to incidents on campus. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Joint Work Session with EWEB Board of Commissioners Eugene Water & Electric Board Training Room th 500 East 4 Avenue May 30, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mel Menegat, John Simpson, Patrick Lanning, Ron Farmer. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: John Brown. President Mel Menegat welcomed everyone to the third joint work session of the Eugene City Council and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) commissioners. He opened the EWEB work session and noted that Commissioner Brown was excused. President Menegat reviewed the desired outcomes of the meeting as set forth in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), which focused on developing a constructive and collaborative relationship between the City and EWEB. He highlighted EWEB’s priorities for the riverfront site, including maximizing the economic value of the sale of surplus property, minimizing the risk of committing to the Roosevelt project development, protecting the riparian edge and preserving the future value of remaining EWEB properties and facilities on the site after the sale of surplus property. He said those priorities were not inconsistent with the City’s priorities. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council work session and welcomed those present. She expressed her appreciation for the opportunity for further discussion with EWEB and said the council understood the monetary concerns and obligations and the importance of the riverfront site to the community. A. WORK SESSION: Joint Work Session with EWEB Board of Commissioners: Discussion of Planning Process for Eugene Water & Electric Board Riverfront Property EWEB General Manager Randy Berggren stated that the purpose was to develop a cooperative or collaborative approach to master planning the surplus property on the riverfront site that was responsive to EWEB’s and the council’s priorities. He summarized the activities to date and said that staff from EWEB and the City had reached unanimous agreement on the process being proposed to meet mutual objectives. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:10 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 1 Work Session EWEB Property Manager Mark Oberle highlighted four important aspects of the proposed process: ? respects the City Council’s sole authority to have the final word in approval of the master plan, ? respects EWEB’s sole authority for disposal of utility property, ? establishes an effective community involvement process, and ? adheres to applicable codes, regulations and laws. Mr. Oberle drew attention to details of the process that were contained in the agenda packet. He said there were three phases: prelude to the master plan, creation of the master plan and implementation of the master plan. He provided a brief overview of the phases and noted that some adjustment might be necessary to achieve efficiencies in the process. City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that in February 2007, the council directed staff to develop two paths: one a City-managed process and one a co-managed process. He said staff was jointly recommending consideration of an EWEB-managed process that would be very similar to a co-managed process. He asked City Planner Nan Laurence to highlight issues that would be the basis of the council and board discussion. Ms. Laurence said the focus was on the master planning process and after extensive staff analysis of City- managed and co-managed processes and consultation with legal counsel, staff developed and was recom- mending a third option, which was an EWEB-managed collaborative process. She said limitations on the council’s participation due to the council’s later involvement in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) amendment decision were the reason for the recommendation. She said the intent was for a process that was as collaborative and open to public participation as possible and asked for direction to staff to prepare a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) laying out the process and bring an outline of the MOU back to another work session. Mayor Piercy asked if the City and EWEB would collaborate on appointing an advisory team and hiring a consultant. Mr. Oberle said that developing a list of names for the committee would be collaborative; the EWEB board would be responsible for selecting committee members and hiring the consultant. Ms. Bettman thanked EWEB for its efforts to be responsive to the council’s motion. She said the law provided clarity and the fact that it was a quasi-judicial process trumped everything. She was willing to support the recommendation of both staffs and take that further by removing the reference to collaboration altogether. She said many issues in the MOU could prejudice final quasi-judicial action. She felt that the City should only provide technical assistance and cooperation in the process and staff should not be in the position of working on policy issues. She said the MOU should only address the responsibility for resources and the City’s willingness to provide technical assistance. She thought the other items were not appropriate in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Ms. Bettman said with respect to acquiring the property, there was a clearly defined, legal process for the City to follow once EWEB determined whether the property was surplus. She said whatever EWEB decided in consultation with the community, the plan would come before the council and undergo a public process; the council would review the record and make a quasi-judicial decision. She appreciated efforts to include the City in the process, but given the quasi-judicial nature of the issue, it was inappropriate. She encour- aged the EWEB board to consider the property as more than just something that belonged to them, the value of which had to be maximized. She said a better approach was to think of it in terms of a resource that was managed for the public good. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 2 Work Session City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that his advice to staff regarding the ability of the council to become involved in the collaborative process was the same as Ms. Bettman’s comments. He said because the council would be making a quasi-judicial decision, issues related to ex parte communication and bias could be raised if elected officials participated in developing a product on which they would be required to make a decision. Mayor Piercy asked if the council could be involved in appointment of the advisory team or selection of a consultant. Mr. Klein said that was not a problem as long as it was not tied to design of the master plan or land use components of the process. Commissioner Lanning thanked staff for their efforts to create an opportunity to move forward in a collaborative way. He assured Ms. Bettman that EWEB was thinking not just of the monetary issues, but how the community would be affected. He hoped to move forward in a collaborative way and avoid problems later in the process. He asked that issues and concerns be raised now rather than later. Mr. Poling echoed Commissioner Lanning’s remarks. He was pleased to see two governmental bodies working together to resolve issues. He asked if the revised collaborative approach set forth in Attachment B to the AIS reflected any of the concerns raised by Ms. Bettman. Mr. Klein said he would research that issue. Mr. Poling liked the approach as it was well thought out, had good public involvement and a number of points for checking in with the council. He hoped to see the process move forward. Ms. Laurence said that staff would incorporate input from councilors and commissioners, as well as staff analysis, when the MOU was developed. Ms. Bettman raised several concerns regarding policy issues in the proposed process. She said determining a time limit for reaching an agreement and agreeing that process milestones were decision points and exit ramps went beyond technical assistance. She felt the technical assistance City staff might provide to EWEB should be no different than any other quasi-judicial process, such as the one for the hospital. She identified a number of items that she perceived as major policy decisions, such as clarifying the nature of mixed use development and exempting property sale from future City real property value-added charges. She pointed out a number of other policy decisions points and emphasized that the process diverged considerably from other quasi-judicial proceedings. Regarding whether there were aspects of Attachment B that could give rise to remand of the council’s action, Mr. Klein said that would have to be based on a claim of bias or ex parte communications. He said that many items in Attachment B were not actions required of councilors or the mayor; they were actions for staff and those would not give rise to claims of bias or ex parte communications. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that there were a number of policy issues in the recommended approach and it was not a typical quasi-judicial process because normally City staff was not involved in an application that would be submitted to the City. He distinguished the legal limitation from the policy questions and said that the council had the legal authority to authorize staff to be involved in the process. He noted the council could not agree, as part of the MOU, to exempt anything related to a future legislative action, such as exempting the property from future City real property value added charge as this council could not bind a future council. He said other than that issue, the council had the legal authority to authorize staff and the discussion should focus on whether the council wished to do so. Mr. Berggren said from EWEB’s perspective the list of opportunity areas included in the process did represent a unique approach, which was demanded by a unique piece of property. He said that EWEB was MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 3 Work Session interested in mitigating risk related to the Roosevelt project and that was why the process attempted to define some of the uncertainties at an early stage and clarify those to the greatest extent. He said the spirit of the process was to be sensitive to its quasi-judicial nature but push towards its limits to achieve collaboration with the City that would have mutually agreeable results. Commissioner Lanning asserted that if the parties did not move forward and address some of the issues at the beginning of the process it could take years to complete. He heard repeatedly from the community that a lengthy process was not desired. He urged that staff be trusted to do their excellent work to move EWEB and the City forward in a timely way. Ms. Bettman stated that City staff did not have the authority to make policy decisions or even to inform the EWEB board or staff on policy issues unless it received direction from the council. She understood that the council was being asked to participate so that EWEB could bring forward a master plan that was most likely to achieve council approval, but that was not something that could be done. She said there was policy on the books with respect to the council’s priorities for mixed use development and that should guide the process. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the proposed process elements of an advisory team, facilitator, and public involvement and understood EWEB’s need for sufficient revenue to move its facilities to the Roosevelt site, protection of the public’s interest and the need to move ahead in a timely manner. He said the City’s role in the process was very limited as currently defined and did not meet his definition of collaboration. He wanted the council to have greater involvement in establishing the process, but not the content, to avoid the perception of bias. He suggested that the council and EWEB board jointly select the advisory team and the consultant. He also suggested eliminating policy issues in the MOU and just simply defining the process and responsibilities with respect to resources. Commissioner Farmer remarked that the discussion was ironic as the EWEB board initially wanted to proceed with master planning but was attempting to respond to the council’s request to be involved in the process with the proposal for a collaborative process. He said EWEB attempted to design a collaborative process but doubted that any commissioner would object to removing any parts the council did not want included. He said that EWEB had a major concern about timing and wanted an approach that enhanced its changes for approval instead of being stalled in a lengthy process. He indicated that EWEB would use the Downtown Plan for guidance in developing a master plan for the site. Mr. Pryor recognized the delicate balance between partnership and legal propriety and observed that success was often based not on what was done but how it was done. He concurred with Mr. Zelenka’s comments regarding the council’s involvement in establishing the process but not the content and choosing an advisory team and consultant. He agreed it would be helpful to EWEB to understand what the council would like to see to avoid spending months on something that would not meet with approval. He felt the City and EWEB could work together to identify some of the parameters and characteristics that the council would be considering. Commissioner Farmer asked if the criteria would be different from that in the Downtown Plan. Mr. Pryor replied that part of the ongoing discussion could be visioning within the guidelines of existing plans. Ms. Taylor agreed that the council had expressed an interest in being involved in the process, but if the council could not legally be involved than City staff should not be involved as staff could not speak for the council. She questioned why staff would be involved. City Manager Taylor explained that staff had expertise in technical aspects of the planning process, the City’s land use code, and the concepts and aspirational ideas in the Downtown Plan. He said those skills and knowledge were not necessarily available in the EWEB staff and providing technical assistance could assist with a unified approach. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor questioned how staff would frame policy issues. City Manager Taylor replied that meant identifying and highlighting policy decisions to be made by the council or EWEB board and making recommendations. Ms. Taylor asked if there were legal difficulties with the process suggested by Mr. Zelenka. Mr. Klein replied that Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion would not present any legal problems. He said if the council was interested in further exploring where the line was drawn with respect to demonstrating bias he would need to conduct further research. Ms. Taylor said she would appreciate having the additional research, but was still concerned with staff being involved in discussion of policy as that was strictly the council’s role. Commissioner Lanning remarked that the discussion of staff’s role in policy and implementation needed to be looked at not just from a legal perspective but also with respect to effectively moving the process forward. He said it was difficult to define that clearly in black and white and he asked the council to look at the leadership aspect instead of the black and white use of the word “policy.” He did not think the way that word was being used in the discussion was how most people would refer to it. Ms. Ortiz said the issue for her was about leaders in the community giving direction to staff about how they wanted to proceed. She said conversations in the community indicated some confusion about EWEB’s relationship to the City. She was pleased that staff was involved and that was consistent with direction from the council. She said policies were written and staff was not changing them; it was creating a plan that would be guided by those policies. She liked Mr. Zelenka’s suggestions and hoped that EWEB and the council could continue to meet and work together as community leaders. She said the riverfront property was an important site and it should not be left to one body to decide its future. She felt there was a difference between working with EWEB and working with an entity such as the hospital because EWEB was a public utility. Mayor Piercy said it was the City’s and EWEB’s job to work together for the best results for the commu- nity. She liked Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion for collaborating on the advisory team and consultant. She felt staff could help do the work and she wanted them to be involved in developing choices and options for the council. Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for the work of staff and the EWEB Board’s desire to collaborate with the City. He said the public expected both elected bodies to work together to ensure that a public asset was managed for the community’s benefit. He concurred with Mr. Zelenka’s comments and urged staff to work together on every issue where it did not raise legal concerns. He asked for an advisory memorandum from the city attorney on the legal issues related to collaboration and guidance on the council’s appropriate involvement. President Menegat reiterated Commissioner Farmer’s earlier comments that EWEB had moved toward a collaborative process because of what was heard at a previous meeting with the City Council and because of the benefit of having City staff working in conjunction with EWEB staff. He agreed that there were some aspects of collaboration in which the council and the board could not participate, but there were many others, such as developing the MOU, where it was possible. Mr. Zelenka remarked that sharing selection of the advisory team and consultant could enhance the process and ensure inclusion of all of the perspectives that council and board members wanted to see. He under- stood EWEB’s desire to have as much upfront agreement with the council as possible and thought that MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 5 Work Session sharing selection would be a good start. He perceived the process as similar to a refinement plan where City staff made their expertise and professionalism available to guide the process. He supported the involvement of City staff to provide the land use and other expertise that EWEB staff would need. Mr. Poling felt that Ms. Ortiz had characterized the policy issues accurately; staff was aware of the council’s policy and was there to make sure they were followed, not to change them. He said the motion to direct staff to develop an MOU for the council’s consideration was a good move forward while legal counsel was preparing guidance for the council’s involvement in the process. Mr. Berggren commented that it was less important what the process was called than that both bodies shared an understanding and agreement about it. He was comfortable taking the suggestions from Mr. Zelenka to the EWEB Board for consideration and as a result of the discussion had a better understanding of the line between policy and process and could present that to the board with some advocacy. Ms. Bettman stated that she did not have any objections to Mr. Zelenka’s suggested for a shared selection approach, but did not want the council to put resources into a process as that became a tacit partnership. She pointed out that the first and second options in the AIS were responsive to the council’s direction, but the third option for an EWEB-managed process was not, although that was prompted by legal advice about the quasi-judicial process. She appreciated that EWEB had tried to be responsive but the process had changed because of legal problems. She said the council had general policies and it was not the purview of staff to interpret those unless it requested direction from the council. She supported staff providing technical assistance, as that would be available to anyone. She asked for a response from EWEB Board members to a public message from EWEB that it was willing to offer the City a place at the table but had no intention of giving up the lead role. She said EWEB should take a lead in the master planning process and it was the council’s decision whether or not to approve the plan. She asked if there had been a change in EWEB’s sentiment regarding taking the lead role. Commissioner Farmer agreed that EWEB had to take the lead in master planning and present the plan to the council for approval. Vice President Simpson thanked staff from the City and EWEB for their cooperative and collaborative approach to working together. He said collaboration simply meant working together and he favored that approach as it would best serve the community. He favored working with the council to select an advisory team and consultant and reducing the MOU to a process-only document. He said it was important to realize that EWEB was a tremendous asset to the community as a public utility and the benefit was significantly greater than if it was a for-profit utility. He looked forward to the council’s guidance and the staff’s leadership and expertise to assist EWEB in the master planning process. Vice President Simpson acknowledged that EWEB would be working toward a master plan that would provide adequate financial value to EWEB so that facilities could be moved from the riverfront property to a more appropriate location. He said the highest possible value was simply one consideration and others included community interests, design criteria and relationship to the Downtown Plan. He said that existing plans and policies would provide guidance to EWEB about what the City wanted. He was disappointed that the City Council was constrained from participating in a collaborative approach but had faith that there were legal ways for the council to communicate its needs and desires for the process. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support an EWEB-managed, collabo- rative master planning process and to provide direction to the city manager and the EWEB general manager to draft a memorandum of understanding to outline the steps leading to the disposition and redevelopment of the EWEB riverfront property MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 6 Work Session and to bring the outline back for discussion at a subsequent joint meeting between the council and the board. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to remove the word “collaborative.” Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor accepted the amendment. Mr. Zelenka asked if an amendment to specify a shared advisory team and consultant selection process was necessary. City Manager Taylor and Mr. Berggren assured him that the direction was clear to staff and an amendment was not necessary. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council work session at 1:10 p.m. President Menegat adjourned the EWEB work session at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 30, 2007 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 11, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council work session. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported that the West Broadway Advisory Committee members had been appointed and the first meeting was scheduled at the end of the month. She wished to thank all of the people who were willing to serve on the committee. She related that the Cultural Policy Review process was wrapping up and the final report would soon be before the council. She said the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs had begun its work as well. She noted that Ms. Ortiz was a member of the committee. Mayor Piercy shared that she had participated in a diversity training session entitled Forced Journeys. Mayor Piercy stated that Assistant City Manager Angel Jones had been named pro tem City Manager until a new City Manager was hired. Mayor Piercy said she had represented the City of Eugene in the Portland Rose Parade on June 9. Continuing, Mayor Piercy reported that she had been part of a “Global Warming Teach-In” at the University of Oregon during the previous week. She invited everyone who was listening to take the Mayor’s Climate Challenge at www.sustaineugene.com. Mr. Pryor stated that the Human Services Commission (HSC) adopted its budget. He said because of the Secure Rural Schools money, the County had been able to hold the Human Services Department harmless. He noted that some cuts were made, but they were insignificant compared to early budgetary projections. He thought the City of Eugene might have to come in with some supplemental budgets later in the year as things transpired. Mr. Pryor reported that the West Eugene Collaborative, the group working on transportation in West Eugene, had broken into two subgroups working on the issues. He said he was serving on the group on the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Lane Transit District and the City and learning more about those particular arrangements with regard to the West 11 Avenue corridor and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and transportation alternatives to try to get a feel for what the opportunities were and the kind of recommendations that would work within the framework that had already been adopted by the public bodies. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum on the police officer patrol of the parks. She had heard that resources had been pulled for the bicycle patrols that served Monroe Park, Scobert Park, and the river area and had been focused on downtown. City Manager Taylor said the program in place had not changed. He indicated that he would have Police Chief Bob Lehner provide her with a memorandum. Mr. Poling did not have anything to report. He noted that he had a Police Commission meeting coming up on June 14 and a Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission meeting coming up as well. He added that he had missed the meeting of the EmX Steering Committee the previous week as he had been out of town. Ms. Solomon wished to applaud the success of the We are Bethel Celebration, held the previous weekend at Peterson Barn. She said it had been a beautiful day and the celebration was well-attended. Mr. Clark reported that he had attended the Santa Clara Community Organization (SCCO) meeting held on June 7. He related that residents had tried to identify an appropriate place for a community park. He appreciated the information provided by Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter and Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin. Mr. Zelenka related that he had attended a meeting of the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC). He showed examples of a waterproof Tyvek card that had been passed out to MWC members explaining which fish a person could keep and which should be released. Mr. Zelenka commended the Mayor for her selection of the membership of the West Broadway Advisory Committee. He felt the committee would do well. He wished to thank the committee members in advance for all of the work ahead of them. Mr. Zelenka voiced his support for the Police Auditor. He said while he had “utmost respect” for the rank and file and leadership of the Police Department, he had been disappointed with the recent editorials written by the representatives of the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA). He opined the union representatives were exercising “delay tactics” and were “going out of their way to avoid accountability.” Mr. Zelenka wished to welcome the new Sustainability Manager to the City. Continuing, Mr. Zelenka related that he had participated in his first “one-on-one” with the Mayor at the Market of Choice on Franklin Boulevard. He thought there should be better ways to communicate with constituents; he thought the one-on-one sessions were a great way to do so. Mr. Zelenka expressed disappointment that the Oregon Petroleum Association had begun collecting signatures to repeal the gasoline tax. Ms. Ortiz echoed Ms. Solomon’s comments about the We are Bethel Celebration. She had enjoyed the celebration. She related that the celebration had begun with a grant through the Weed and Seed project. She said there had been a lot of children in attendance and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz shared her excitement about the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee to Finance Homelessness and Housing Programs. She reported that at the last meeting, the history of the work to remedy and prevent homelessness had been shared. She said one member had been asked to write down his oral history so that it could be saved. Ms. Ortiz related that she had attended a gathering at the Red Cross office to discuss pollution from the railroad yards. She indicated that she would bring this forward as a potential subject of a work session as it was a community issue for those neighborhoods that were affected. Ms. Ortiz said she was glad the HSC budget had passed but she had some concern about the money that was “left over” that went to the County General Reserve Fund. Mr. Pryor clarified that it did not go into the County General Reserve; rather it had been placed in the HSC Reserve Fund. Ms. Ortiz did not believe the money had been spent in the way the City’s Budget Committee had intended. Mayor Piercy was reminded that she had attended the We are Bethel Celebration, the Education Center Meeting, and Bike Day which was co-sponsored by the Science Factory. City Manager Taylor reported that he received the draft ballot title for the referendum on the gasoline tax. He said it would not be known if there would be enough signatures to place it on the ballot until June 29. City Manager Taylor related that he had attended the Prefontaine Classic and had been impressed by the athletes. He said immediately after the event concluded, work began to renovate Hayward Field in preparation for the 2008 Olympic Trials. Ms. Bettman asked if there was time to challenge the language of the draft ballot title. City Attorney Jerry Lidz replied that a challenge could be made within five days. Ms. Bettman requested copies of the ballot. Mr. Zelenka asked if the item could be placed on the November ballot. City Manager Taylor replied that he was not certain. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, he affirmed that the balloting process would cost the City approximately $100,000. B. WORK SESSION: Manufactured Dwelling Park Regulations City Manager Taylor stated that the Housing Policy Board (HPB) had a committee that developed the recommendations. He asked Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division, Richie Weinman, to speak about it. Mr. Weinman explained that the HPB had taken up the issue one year earlier and had appointed a committee. Ms. Solomon had served as chair. The committee membership included John VanLandingham (HPB Chair at the time), a park resident, a park owner, a park manager, and two at-large committee members. He stated that the city of Eugene currently had 34 manufactured home parks with 3,100 spaces. He said Eugene had an ordinance that protected the homeowner/residents of some parks and 18 of the parks, representing approximately 1,200 spaces, were covered by the ordinance. He related that when the ordinance was enacted in 1989 it provided protections for homeowners, but it only applied to parks that were in non-conforming uses such as industrial zones or flood plains because there was an anticipation that MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 3 Work Session they would eventually close. He added that it also only applied to special category tenants defined as tenants who were 70 years old and older, disabled, or low income. Mr. Weinman stated that no one anticipated at that time that the parks in residential areas would be closed, but at present the properties are becoming very valuable for redevelopment. He said, as a result, people who own manufactured homes were concerned because there were not enough spaces to move the homes to. He averred that the ordinance that was recommended for consideration represented a compromise between the different interests on the committee. He explained that it would protect some of the homeowners and provide them some compensation from the property owner should the park close, but it also recognized that the property owners had the right to sell the property. He summarized the recommended changes to the existing ordinance: ? All parks in the community containing four or more spaces would be covered by the ordinance; ? All home-owning residents in the parks would be covered; ? The park owner must hire a housing counselor to assist residents in moving and relocation; ? Residents are entitled to compensation for their losses – if the home could be moved residents land- lords provide moving costs according to a schedule and, if the home could not be moved, the land- lord the homeowner could either receive payment equal to real market value plus a flat amount for moving based on the federal relocation compensation schedule. Mr. Weinman noted that the owner could subtract any state subsidy from the payment to the tenant and the resident would not get full value for their asset. He said the owner might get System Development Charge (SDC) credits if applicable. Mr. Weinman related that the State was “hotly debating” bills that would provide statewide protections. He said the big sticking point at this juncture was the preemption clause, which would prevent local jurisdic- tions from passing their own ordinances. He stated that a bill had passed out of committee with a compromise that included a provision that a local jurisdiction would have six months to prepare and pass an ordinance before the law would go into effect. Ms. Solomon declared that the committee process had been respectful, with very different opinions at the table, and that it had truly resulted in a compromise. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the work that had gone into the recommendations. She asked how many parks contained less than five spaces. Mr. Weinman replied that he was uncertain whether the information was available given that they were not classified by the State as a manufactured home park. Ms. Jennings noted there were four parks in the City of Eugene that had four spaces. Ms. Bettman surmised that 16 people would be affected by a park closure with no recourse. She said it seemed there was no provision for residents to weigh in on the decision-making leading up to a park closure. Mr. Weinman responded that there was a state law that governed this and under that law the owner had a choice between giving a 180-day notice or a 365-day notice to park tenants. Ms. Bettman asserted that park residents would not have the opportunity to weigh in on the land use issues surrounding a change in use for the manufactured home park. Mr. Weinman explained that the City did not make a decision for the park owner; the park owner could close the park and the City had no power to say yes or no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman indicated that she would be looking for ways in which the residents were notified before the decision was made and for ways residents could formally weigh in. She asked why the park owners would receive SDC credits in a situation wherein the owners were converting the land to a “higher use.” Mr. Weinman replied that the owners might not receive SDC credits. He said in the spirit of compromise the members of the committee wanted to find a “four-way compensation package.” He noted that the SDC credits would be decided on a case-by-case basis. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz clarified that the provision on SDC credits was not currently in the ordinance. Mr. Weinman added that such a credit would only be granted at the time of the building permit. Mr. Clark asked why the City was facing this issue and why it was in the owner’s interest to sell the land. Mr. Weinman replied that it was not that parks were closing “right and left;” rather, for a variety of reasons the cost of land was going up and at some point people look at redeveloping property. Mr. Clark asked if there were more park closures statewide than before. Mr. Weinman affirmed there were because park owners were getting paid large amounts of money for their properties. Mr. Zelenka asked when the last mobile home park had been created in the City of Eugene. Mr. Weinman guessed that it had been 20 years. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Weinman stated that the mobile home park vacancy rate was low. Mr. Zelenka noted that it was often low-income housing. Mr. Zelenka referred to House Bill (HB) 2735, noting that it declared the payments to mobile home owners to be non-taxable income. He asked if this was a new development or if the existing payments were taxable. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification on the provision of SDC credits under some circumstances. Mr. Weinman replied that the committee had struggled with the issue of compensation. He related that there were members of the committee who felt it should not just be the park owners’ responsibility to pay. He explained that owners questioned why they should have to pay compensation just for wanting to sell land that was theirs and the SDC credits were seen as a way to “spread that pain around.” He said this was a way for the local government to participate in the compensation equation. Ms. Jennings noted, as a point of information, that the Elmira Estates manufactured home park was developed in 1999 and that several others had been developed around 1989 to 1990. Ms. Solomon confirmed that the committee had wanted “all four entities” to participate in the compensation process. She pointed out that people signed a document when moving into a manufactured home park affirming they knew it was not a permanent space. Mr. Zelenka noted that the compensation outlined in Section 6 indicated homeowners would receive 100 percent compensation unless their homes were in commercial zones or flood plains, in which case they would receive 50 percent compensation. He did not perceive the ordinance as a conversion program so much as a protection against getting rid of low income housing. He questioned why the latter homeowners should be singled out. Mr. Weinman did not disagree. He said the section, as written, had come from the spirit of the compromise the committee had worked with. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka observed that HB 2735 would give a five-year property tax assessment value freeze on the manufactured home park land after the closure and asked if that was true regardless of what the property owner did with the property. Mr. Weinman affirmed that it was true. Mayor Piercy asked how the City of Eugene’s proposals differed from the State legislation. Mr. Weinman replied that local recommendations included a housing counselor. He said the State legislation did not allow rent increases during the period after the park owners had announced a park would close. He related that the State legislation had a somewhat different and lower schedule for paying moving costs. Ms. Bettman did not believe the SDC credits were included in the ordinance. She surmised that the City Manager would have “broad discretion” to grant those credits. Mr. Lidz responded that there were some state requirements for when those credits should be granted and there were some that were in the SDC methodology. Ms. Bettman asked if the City would have to take formal steps to amend the SDC methodology to allow such credits. She commented that when speaking of “spreading the pain around,” she assumed someone would close their manufactured home park because they believed they would make more money through another land use. She believed this constituted compensation. She asserted that given that an SDC was charged for capacity, any unpaid costs would be transferred onto the remainder of the community. She asked for clarification as to how the “SDC piece” would be implemented and specified that it be given in writing. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Weinman pointed out that Attachment B contained specific information on the differences and whether the local ordinance was better than what the State legislation would provide for. Mr. Clark asked whether the House Bill or Senate Bill was more likely to pass. Mr. Weinman replied that, it was unclear, but the House Bill had passed through committee and was the one with the preemption clause. City Manager Taylor noted that the item was scheduled for a public hearing on June 18. C. WORK SESSION: Oregon Department of Transportation Presentation on I-5/Willamette River Bridge Project City Manager Taylor invited Transportation Planning Engineer for the Public Works Department, Chris Henry, to the table. Mr. Henry introduced Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff member, Tim Dodson, and consultant for the project, Lou Krug. He noted that the existing bridge was 45 years old; in a 2002 assessment it had been found to be damaged and the repairs would not be cost effective. Mr. Dodson provided a power point presentation entitled The OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program and the Willamette River Bridge, hard copies of which were provided to the council and staff. He reminded the council that the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA) III had included $1.3 billion for the repair and replacement of 365 bridges around the State, of which the Willamette River Bridge was one. He said originally the bridge had been scheduled for approximately $70 million but since then it had MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 6 Work Session been increased to $180 million. He added that at this point in time the whole program was in “negative reserve.” Mr. Dodson recognized the members of the Community Advisory Group who were present, noting that they had been participating in the design process for the bridge and had been very helpful. He reported that ODOT had met with the Laurel Hill Valley Neighborhood, City of Springfield, and the American Institute of Architects. He said they would meet with the County Commissioners later in the week and hoped to meet with the Fairmount Neighbors as well. Mr. Dodson related that impacts to the environment were of primary interest to the regulators. He stated that the project was in the environmental assessment phase. He explained that as the environmental analysis was conducted, a better idea of the number of piers and the bridge footprint would be known. He said they had identified which bridge types could be afforded by the current budget. He noted that ODOT was planning to procure a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), adding that having construction experience interfacing with the design process would bring energy to the design team. He showed slides of the conceptual designs that had been formulated thus far and delineated the differences between them. In conclusion, Mr. Dodson stated that ODOT was willing to build any bridge but only had $70 million to allocate to it unless additional funds could be brought in. He noted that the $70 million was for the bridge structure alone. He said the project included funding for another $110 million in engineering and other costs, noting that it would cost several million dollars to demolish the existing bridge. Mayor Piercy commented that the designs responded to the City’s needs but not to its “wishes.” She said it had been hoped that the bridge would be a “signature bridge” and would serve as a gateway to the two communities. She asked what the timeline was for additional funds. Mr. Dodson replied that ODOT would need to know of any significant design changes within six months. Mayor Piercy asked if any particular comments had been made by members of the public about the design of the bridge. Mr. Dodson responded that some members of the public had voiced support for an arch kind of structure and some had suggested a cabled bridge. Mr. Henry added that the community response had been mixed with regard to bridge types. He stated that the Community Advisory Group had expressed a preference for reducing the environmental impact over esthetics. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Dodson and Mr. Krug for the presentation. He said though the Harlow Neighbor- hood Association was not going to be tremendously impacted, it would still appreciate being updated on the project. Mr. Poling asked if there were plans to expand Franklin Boulevard to seven lanes. Mr. Dodson replied that ODOT had picked a conservative cross-section in order to provide a hole big enough under the bridge to expand the road to the “worst case.” Mr. Henry stressed that neither jurisdiction was advocating for expansion of the road to seven lanes. He said the future scenario for Franklin Boulevard included two lanes in each direction, two EmX lanes, and some additional width. Mr. Pryor averred that it was worthwhile to balance the transportation needs, environmental needs, and esthetics. He was conscious of the costs and preferred a single span over the river. He expressed a preference for the haunched bridge design. Ms. Bettman expressed surprise that the collateral projects were more expensive than the bridge itself. She wondered what was included. Mr. Henry responded that the elevation of the roadway to the bridge had to be MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 7 Work Session raised. Mr. Dodson added that Franklin Boulevard ramps would also have to be raised and this would include construction of a wall. Mr. Henry clarified that the bridge would have to be higher because of the railroad tracks. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a planning process in preparation for application for the greenway permit. Mr. Henry asked Associate Planner for the Planning Division, Ann Siegenthaler, to respond to the question. Ms. Siegenthaler explained that there would probably be five or six land use approvals through the process of bridge construction and some of those would require council approval. She said the details on the permits were not yet known. She stated that land use approvals included a greenway permit, a Metro Plan amendment, and a Refinement Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a design option to construct a bridge with no piers in the river, such as a suspension bridge. Mr. Dodson replied that there was no affordable option for that. Ms. Bettman asked for more detail on the costs that were arising from things other than the bridge. Mr. Dodson replied that those types of costs were associated with the construction of the bridge and were necessary to its construction. Mr. Henry added that ODOT did value engineering throughout a project and actively looked for ways to reduce the costs. Ms. Bettman asked when ODOT representatives would come before the council again with regard to this project. Mr. Dodson projected that they would return in a year, after final design work had begun post- environmental assessment. He added that any time the council wished to ask ODOT staff to come and speak about the project they could do so. Ms. Bettman said she liked suspension bridges. Mayor Piercy was appreciative of the work that ODOT was doing to get out in front of the environmental impact. She welcomed hearing from the community on both the environmental and visual impact. Mr. Zelenka echoed Ms. Bettman’s preference. He asked how much it would cost to build a bridge with one or no piers. Mr. Dodson replied that it would add at least $30 million to the project cost. Mr. Zelenka asked if anyone had asked Representative Peter DeFazio for more money for the project. Mayor Piercy replied that Representative DeFazio had said that this area already received a lot of transportation improvement funding. She noted that the federal government would be providing less transportation funding in the next fiscal year. Mr. Zelenka preferred the arched bridge design over the haunched design. Ms. Ortiz thanked ODOT for its work. She said she wanted the bridge to be functional for a long time. She added that bridges did not tend to be pretty. Mayor Piercy commented that the City might have to be more modest in its expectations. She thought it was still possible to make something the community could be proud of. She felt the bridge was located in an important place in the community. Mr. Dodson remarked that they had looked at the form of the bridge, because that was where the money was, but when the bridge was being constructed they could put concrete form liners or add color to the bridge fairly economically. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked if the arts community had been involved in the discussion. She averred that the City should not do anything unless it “looked through the lens” of being the “City of the Arts and Outdoors.” Mr. Henry replied that there were members of the Community Advisory Group who had involvement with the parks. He thought it would be possible to add the arts perspective through the group. He reiterated that there had been a presentation to the American Institute of Architects. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Dodson replied that the only pedestrian access on the freeway system consisted of the 12-foot wide shoulders of the roadway. He said while the state of Oregon allowed pedestrians to walk by the freeways, it did not encourage them to do so. Mr. Zelenka asked what the lifetime of the bridge was projected to be. Mr. Dodson replied that it would be built to last 100 years. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 9 Work Session