Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: October 27, 2008 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 July 14, 2008, Work Session, July 16, 2008, Work Session, September 15, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, September 17, 2008, Work Session, September 22, 2008, Work Session, September 24, 2008, Work Session, October 7, 2008, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews and October 14, 2008, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews. ATTACHMENTS A.July 14, 2008, Work Session B.July 16, 2008, Work Session C.September 15, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting D.September 17, 2008, Work Session E.September 22, 2008, Work Session F.September 24, 2008, Work Session G.October 7, 2008, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews H.October 14, 2008, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081027\S0810272A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 14, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy acknowledged the recent 2008 Olympic Track and Field Trials, held at Hayward Field at the University of Oregon (UO), and expressed appreciation to the university, the Oregon Track Club, the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALCO), the City of Springfield, the volunteers, the athletes, visitors, all partners in the effort, and City staff. Mayor Piercy reported she participated in the Mayor’s Walk for the Butte-to Butte race and took four minutes off her time in an event with a very high turnout because of the Olympic Trials, which were in progress at the time. Mayor Piercy noted the press conference to recognize the Beam purchase of the Centre Court/Washburne property and said it made observers feel energized and optimistic. Mayor Piercy noted the recent West Eugene Collaborative open houses, which were opportunities for citizens to weigh in on options for transportation in west Eugene. Mayor Piercy announced that she would introduce City Manager Jon Ruiz as the featured speaker at the next City Club meeting. Ms. Bettman echoed the Mayor’s comments about the trials and the Beam press conference. Ms. Taylor noted her attendance at the press conference mentioned by the Mayor and was glad to see the project go forward. She had liked Beam representative Brad Walston’s statement that the street people downtown were a part of downtown and if someone wanted a homogenous experience, they should go to a mall. She liked his attitude and looked forward to the completion of the project. Ms. Taylor was disappointed that some of the money intended for street repairs was to be diverted to other uses, such as street paving, and she thought the council should be able to discuss that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor noted the recent letter to the editor complaining about the domination of Amazon Pool hours by swim teams and other organized events rather than by taxpayers. She thought something should be done about that. Mr. Clark also commended the recent Olympic Trials. Acknowledging his initial concerns about the project, he said he had been proud to participate in the press conference for the transfer of the Centre Court building to Beam and looked forward to the success of the project. He hoped the community was seeing the beginning of a transformation downtown. Mr. Clark noted the upcoming Cal Young potluck picnic on July 24 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Gilham Park. Mr. Clark thanked City staff for considering creative and effective ways to use taxpayer funds to solve some of the community’s pothole problems as well as the extra time spent by staff discussing road solutions with residents of Bond Lane. Mr. Poling also thanked the organizers of the Olympic Trials. He concurred with the thanks extended to staff by Mr. Clark in regard to the road funding, and suggested the solution being proposed was effective. Ms. Solomon said the Active Bethel Citizens neighborhood organization elected new officers at its last meeting and was a new and energized group. She said the Elmira-Maple road project open house was the next day at the Fairfield Baptist Church, commencing at 4:30 p.m. Ms. Solomon asked if the City would be asked to provide additional infrastructure for the Beam project. Community Development Director Mike Sullivan indicated that Beam had not asked for any such funding. At this time, he did not anticipate any funding request. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation to those responsible for the trials and to City staff. She expressed appreciation to the article on the trials written by Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken. She reported on the all-day upcoming Whiteaker Community Council block party on August 9. She also reported on the recent meeting of the Lane Regional Air Protection Authority meeting and circulated a letter from Faye Stewart regarding Lane County’s reduced budget contribution. Ms. Ortiz reported that the Human Services Commission held a four-hour planning session that involved priority setting and she did not know if the commission had arrived at anything new given the needs that existed. She reported on the recent ground opening event for staff at the new PeaceHealth River Bend campus. Ms. Ortiz noted the upcoming Multi-Cultural Fair at Sheldon High School on August 2 from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. She referred the council to a recent article from a Spokane newspaper about an outdoor recreational fire that started a wildfire which destroyed homes, and admonished Eugene residents that such fires were illegal in Eugene. Mr. Zelenka thought the Beam development would be a great asset to the City and that the City had a good partner in Beam. He had confidence in the firm and looked forward to the elimination of the pit adjacent to Centre Court. Mr. Zelenka also commended the recent Olympic Trials and said he thought the event went off tremen- dously. He commended organizers. He noted the Fairmount neighbor’s recent block party, which he MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 2 Work Session commended as a great event demonstrating community. Mr. Zelenka reported the Amazon Neighbors were having their annual picnic on August 13. He noted his attendance at the recent WEC open houses. He reported that the Arena Neighborhood Liaison Committee was meeting again the next day to review the conditions of approval for the UO’s conditional use permit. Mr. Zelenka said he would send the council a written update regarding the most recent Metropolitan Policy Committee meeting. He said he attended City Manager Jon Ruiz’s recent listening forum event and looked forward to his report. He looked forward to the manager’s clarification regarding the funding to be spent on street repairs. Mr. Pryor also commended the trials and the effort that went into them. He commended the Beam project. He said the WEC forums went well and he thought the group was working hard on creative thinking. He said the HSC funding picture was so bad that people were discouraged and anxious. It was difficult to plan for a sliding system. He said that the Lane Council of Governments Board of Directors held its recent meeting in Florence at the Florence Performing Arts Center, which was a very nice venue. Mr. Pryor said that the biggest issue for him in regard to the use of the street repair funding was less the proposal than the process for councilors to provide input. He had failed to read the memorandum provided to the council and subsequently read about the process in the newspaper, which was a surprise. He thought the council needed a better way to keep informed. He encouraged creative staff thinking but wanted to figure a way to better communicate information. Mayor Piercy said she had also attended the Pigs in the Parks event at Camelot Park and the fire truck had attracted children from all over the neighborhood and everyone had a good time. Mr. Ruiz said he had sent out additional information about the street repair issue and took responsibility if he had misinterpreted the council’s guidance. He said he visited the Country Fair on Sunday and found the event to be interesting. Mr. Ruiz said that commencing this week staff would send out a hot sheet to the elected officials via e-mail to keep the council and mayor up-to-date on a variety of things occurring in the City Manager’s Office. th B. WORK SESSION: Selection of Development Proposals for 10 and Charnelton Site Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency (URA). She thanked all those who submitted proposals for the site under discussion. Associate Planner Nan Laurence provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and the five proposals received. She discussed the rankings process and the input provided by the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) and Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). Ms. Laurence provided an overview of the two highest ranked proposals from WG Development and Opus NWR Development. Ms. Laurence recommended that the council select Opus NWR Development. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Mr. Clark commended the fact there were two proposals for the council to consider. He noted that he had requested that staff prepare a motion that would allow the council to consider what was possible in regard to MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 3 Work Session responding to both top-ranked proposals. He was inclined to support the WG Development proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Laurence indicated the staff analysis was based on the development objectives and readiness of the firms to proceed. Mayor Piercy asked if staff had a chance to talk about price. Mr. Sullivan said before the recommendation came out staff only knew WG Development intended to do a market study if it received the award. He had no way to evaluate the firm’s thinking or its numbers, which seemed to be in flux. He believed some of the feasibility work still remained to be done. Ms. Bettman thought the City was in a strong position, which she appreciated. She agreed with the recommendation of staff and the primary value being fulfilled in the RFP by the proposal. In regard to the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) proposed for the site, Ms. Bettman thought the council should be able to determine how much of a tax break that would be; in regard to the potential forgiveness of systems development charge (SDCs), she asked what SDCs were projected for both projects and what the City’s obligation would be. In regard to parking, Ms. Bettman wanted to know if Opus NWR Development would be paying market value for the Broadway Place parking spots; she also wanted to know about WG Development’s arrange- ments for parking. She liked the brick exterior of the WG Development design, which fit in with the library. However, when she considered other Opus NWR Development projects, like the Southgate campus center, they seemed somewhat industrial, and she thought more design work was needed. Ms. Bettman acknowl- edged she had similar problems with the WG Development proposal. She disliked the lack of access between the ground floor offices and the outside, which did not contribute to an active streetscape, and the fact the public square element of the development was actually private. Community Development Director Mike Sullivan anticipated the Opus NWR Development MUPTE would be about $145,000 annually for ten years; the WG Development MUPTE would be about $85,000 annually for ten years due to the mix of commercial and residential. He estimated that Opus NWR Development would pay $210,000 in property taxes in year 11 as opposed to $135,000 for the WG development, a difference of $80,000, and the City would recover the differences between the two exemptions in about 7.5 years. In regard to parking, Mr. Sullivan said the City’s bulk discount for parking permits provided a 20 to 30 percent discount on the face value of parking, which could apply to either development. In regard to SDCS, it was difficult to quantify those without more information about the design given that SDCs depended on plumbing fixtures in some instances. The Opus NWR Development project would yield about $138,000 in permit and inspection fees without respect to plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits; the WG Development would pay about $117,000 in the same fees. Ms. Taylor did not think the council was ready to make a decision. Her first preference was for a park on the site. She had initially liked the Opus NWR Development proposal for student housing, but then began to hear community concerns about previous student housing ventures that failed. She was also concerned about the distance of the development from the campus and the cost of the rents. Regarding the WG Development proposal, Ms. Taylor suggested that the development could include the west building and a park as well. She liked the idea of the UO space being planned. She had been concerned about the $1 price tag placed on the property and wanted more information about that. She also thought a public hearing would be a good idea, with more information about what was involved in each proposal. She tentatively MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 4 Work Session favored the WG Development proposal at this time because it was a local proposal, because of the UO’s involvement, and because she thought it could result in more public open space. Mr. Zelenka identified the future of the area, the aesthetics of the development, and the financing of the project as major criteria he considered when thinking about the issue. The City would be offering major subsidies to the development and he wanted more information about what was involved. He thought the WG Development proposal was more in line with what was called for in the Downtown Plan and the vision identified by the WBAC, but he had been concerned about the financing. That had been addressed by WG Development’s response. He acknowledged Opus NWR Development’s extensive experience. Mr. Zelenka anticipated that the subsidies for the two proposals would be about the same. The issue for him came down to character and type of development and he thought the two proposals were quite different from each other. He suggested a downtown dormitory with transient residents would be different from an office space with apartments. Mr. Zelenka suggested the council also needed to consider the revenue that resulted from each development and what kind of other uses they would stimulate downtown. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the council could delay its decision and get more information. Mr. Pryor found both proposals to be interesting and thought the staff evaluation of the factors taken into consideration was appropriate and it was up to the council to consider some of the more philosophical factors to the decision. He had not found the Opus NWR Development proposal as compelling as the WG Development proposal but thought student housing could work downtown. He thought it was likely both proposals could succeed. He said he liked the WG Development design. Mr. Pryor also thought it would be good to have more information about financing and what the City was expected to contribute. His inclination, if forced to choose that day, would be the WG Development proposal, but if more refinement occurred he would be willing to look at both proposals again. City Manager Ruiz believed it was important to maintain some process momentum. He said that the WG Development proposal was attractive in that the agreement that would result was relatively simple while the Opus NWR Development proposal was more of a “moving target” and he could not predict the timing of the proposal. In regard to the question of City subsidies, he believed there was a relatively significant difference in the amount to be provided. He said the City would work with both firms to negotiate the level of SDCs. He thought more information was needed in regard to the question of off-site improvements related to the Opus NWR Development proposal. He agreed it was important to support local firms wherever possible, but suggested it was not a “make or break” issue. City Manager Ruiz thought the Opus Development proposal tied in nicely to the transit system serving the UO and Lane Community College. Ms. Ortiz thought that both proposals could work and initially did not have a favorite. After further consideration of the issues and listening to community input, she was now thinking of what the community wanted in its downtown. She thought the critical mass created by 500 students would be good and was not disturbed by the fact school was not in session during the summer as she believed there were ways to fill the spaces. However, she was unsure that the community wanted a building where people came and went or a building that primarily served permanent members of the community. Ms. Ortiz was unsure of which proposal to support at this point. She questioned whether selection of the Opus Development project represented a subsidy of UO student housing. Mayor Piercy indicated she would be looking at both proposals for good architecture such as that found at the Eugene Library. She wanted more in the way of public space. She liked the mixed-use nature of the WG Development proposal and the fact that the firm had a major tenant lined up. She pointed out that students were often in the community for four years or more. Mayor Piercy said that students currently MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 5 Work Session lived in Broadway Place and traveled from downtown to reach the UO. She liked the interface with the street created by the Opus NWR Development proposal. Mayor Piercy asked about the timing of the WG Development project. Ms. Laurence said staff would have to work that out in negotiations. Mayor Piercy observed that Pivet, a local firm, was part of the Opus NWR Development project, giving it a local flavor. She asked staff the time line for a council decision. Mr. Sullivan asked what type of information the council wanted to see, as that could help him determine the amount of time needed to provide it. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that the issue could not drag on and a decision was needed, but given the two strong proposals the City had received, she thought more time was needed. City Manager Ruiz thought a decision before the council’s summer recess would be preferable. Ms. Bettman preferred the Opus NWR Development proposal. She thought that Engineering Data Services Manager Fred McVey could project the SDCs that would be assessed to the project and believed the council needed that information. She said appearance was an issue for her. Ms. Bettman said that Opus called for less of a subsidy and she thought that was always preferable. Ms. Bettman pointed out that mixed use did not have to occur within a single building; mixed uses could occur in an area through a concentration of housing in one place served by commercial nearby. She agreed with the manager about the proximity of the site to the transit system and noted the pressure for student housing, which would otherwise be built elsewhere in the community and not downtown where more people were needed and where they could easily use transit rather than a car. She acknowledged that the WG Development proposal included some housing, but it would also include office space and commercial space that would be competing with other such uses downtown. Ms. Bettman was concerned about the WG Development proposal for phasing and suggested the City maintain ownership of the quarter block not being developed. Ms. Bettman liked the educational component of the WG Development project. Mr. Clark did not think he needed more time to reach a decision. He had hoped to get to Mr. Zelenka’s proposed motion as he thought it was a good one. He had intended to offer an amendment to that motion directing staff to negotiate with whichever developer the council did not select about the potential of negotiating a similar project on another suitable downtown site. If the council decided to put off a decision to get more answers to its questions, he suggested that one of the questions be whether either developer would be interested in developing on another site if the City could assist them in some way. Mr. Clark wanted to capitalize on the success and momentum created by the Beam proposal, and did not want to lose an opportunity to do that. Mr. Clark noted his tentative support for the mix of uses and design in the WG Development proposal, which he considered better in the location across from the library. He considered that location a special place downtown. Mr. Clark determined from Ms. Laurence that staff had no indication that the residential units in the WG Development proposal were to be designed for ownership. Mr. Clark suggested that a mix of students and other residents was preferable to a student-only complex because he thought it would create greater ownership of the space through more tenant continuity. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 6 Work Session thought that particularly important across from the library. Mr. Clark expressed support for the location of the police substation across the street from the library. Mr. Zelenka favored taking more time to make a decision. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to ask City staff to ask Opus and WG to re- fine their proposals before the council break and come back to the council at a future work session to be scheduled by the Mayor, council officers, and City Manager. Mr. Zelenka suggested that two weeks was sufficient time for the two firms to refine their proposals, and said he would like them to “sharpen their pencils” and develop a final proposal. He wanted staff to do a financial comparison of the two proposals when the proposals were received. Mr. Zelenka wanted the developers to provide more detail about the final design in the form of refined architectural renderings and a timeline. He thought that some of the other questions raised by the council should be addressed as well. At the request of Mayor Piercy, Mr. Zelenka restated his motion as follows: Mr. Zelenka moved to ask staff to ask both developers to refine their proposals and bring that back for council consideration before break. Ms. Bettman again seconded the motion. Mayor Piercy called for discussion on the motion. Mr. Poling thought the council had enough information from the two firms to make a decision. He thought otherwise the council risked losing another developer. He liked the way that Ms. Ortiz described the sense of community she found in the WG Development proposal. He thought there would be considerable turnover in the student housing proposed by Opus NWR Development. He thought the inclusion of retail and office space would add to the sense of ownership in the space. Mr. Poling pointed out the council had been working to secure housing, retail, and office space in downtown and he thought a decision to build only student housing worked against those past efforts. He noted that the council would later discuss three student housing projects within walking distance of the University of Oregon, and he thought locating student housing downtown was not a good idea. He could not support the motion and preferred to discuss the motion Mr. Zelenka had intended to offer. Mr. Pryor agreed with the manager’s remarks about the need to be timely. He said he hesitated only because he did not want to regret the $30 million expenditure in the future and because he liked the WG Development proposal and wanted to give the firm time to submit additional information. He wanted more specifics about financing, phasing, a market feasibility study, and if that was not available, a pro forma in regard to what the firm was seeking in regard to who the commercial tenants might be and how those properties would be managed, and a specific subsidy request. Mr. Pryor preferred to see the information within a week rather than before council break, although he acknowledged he did not know when it could be fit into the schedule. Ms. Solomon believed that what Mr. Zelenka requested was a lot to ask to have in two weeks; however, she was willing to take more time to make a decision but wished to do so before the council break in August. She said she liked both proposals but preferred the WG Development proposal because it was a local firm already invested in the community and she considered that more sustainable. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor supported Mr. Zelenka’s motion. She thought the council had enough information from Opus NWR Development but wanted to see more information from WG Development about the level of City subsidy needed. If the project was phased, which she did not object to, she wanted the City to retain ownership of the quarter-block involved. Ms. Taylor added she still hoped the site could be a quarter-block park. She assumed the first phase would be where the hole was. Mr. Sullivan said that staff could commit to a two-week time period but he would have to check with the developers. He did not know what the firms’ turnaround would be. Ms. Ortiz said that Mr. Poling’s comments about lost opportunities resonated with her, and she wanted the public to know that the council took the issue very seriously. She said the council would make a decision when it received the information, which she hoped was in two weeks. Ms. Ortiz emphasized the council would have to make some financial contribution to lift downtown. The difference between the two proposals in regard to the anticipated subsidy was ‘huge,’ and she believed the council would be putting itself out for WG Development if it selected that firm. She hoped the firm provided the information requested. Ms. Bettman pointed out that everything the council was trying to accomplish downtown involved getting more people downtown, and adding nearly 500 people to downtown would give it a big lift. Ms. Bettman suggested the council could discuss the item on July 30. Ms. Bettman said that students were part of the community and would have to live somewhere, whether it was downtown or elsewhere. She did not think the council was putting off a decision; rather, she thought it was practicing due diligence. She noted the WG Development subsidy request was still undefined, and she suggested the more the council required of the firm, the higher the request might be. The firm needed to determine what it was asking for so the council could make a decision. Ms. Bettman emphasized her support for local business. However, she thought in this situation support for a local firm was “just a feed-good” as once the council sold the property to the firm, it could sell it to anyone it wanted, and the council was not ensuring local ownership by selecting WG Development. Ms. Bettman favored the motion and thought the desired information could be provided quickly. She believed that Opus NWR Development had done due diligence but she wanted more certainty about what its design would look like. She emphasized the importance of housing and the provision of a range of housing opportunities to the success of downtown. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, several councilors agreed they would rather get the information requested in writing rather than orally at this time. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 16, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: General Obligation Bonds for Street Preservation Projects Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge recalled the last council work session on the topic, which resulted in the refined project list and revised bond resolution before the council. She provided an overview of the revised project list, suggesting it both responded to data about the streets most cost-effective to repair with bond funds as well as the public’s desire to fix some of the more heavily traveled roads needing reconstruction. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the bond project list included segments in all geographic areas of the City, but there was a heavier emphasis on the south part of Eugene because the majority of streets that required reconstruction were concentrated in that area, while streets in the north part of the community tended to be in need of less expensive treatments, such as slurry seals. Such repairs were not eligible for a bond levy, and would most likely be paid for using local gas tax dollars. Ms. Cutsogeorge reminded the council that the bond would also underwrite the costs of the preservation of off-street bicycle paths and pedestrian paths. Ms. Cutsogeorge recalled the council’s discussion about the need for flexibility to respond to changing conditions over the ten-year period of the bond and said staff proposed that after all projects on the bond measure project list had been completed, the council could add projects to the list or delete them with a super-majority. She recommended that be included in the bond measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge recommended that the City’s share of local improvement projects be funded from other sources to keep the bond measure simple. Ms. Cutsogeorge referred the council to the Transportation Funding Communications Plan, included in the packet as Attachment F. She anticipated further changes to the plan, and noted the restrictions placed on City employees in regard to communications about bond measures. Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff continued to recommend a November 2008 election date to avoid the double- majority requirement, and noted the last day to place a bond measure on the ballot for that date was August 5. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Cutsogeorge called attention to revised Attachment G, Impact on Eugene Taxpayers from Different Bond Amounts. She also noted the distribution of copies of a motion Ms. Bettman intended to offer. Mr. Ruiz called the council’s attention to the list of members who served on the ad hoc citizens’ group that had been working on the issue. He reported that a community survey had been done, but the results were not yet compiled. The ad hoc citizens' group would hear feedback from the survey consultant on the issue on July 18, and he anticipated a similar presentation would be made to the council. He suggested the survey results might influence the council’s final decision. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Mr. Poling determined from City Manager Ruiz that the numbers used to identify the projects did not relate to any project priorities. Mr. Poling asked if “highly visible streets” correlated to heavily used streets. Ms. Cutsogeorge said yes. Mr. Poling liked the idea of the council being able to take projects off and add projects to the list and clarified the process that would take with Ms. Cutsogeorge. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Poling about the potential of project reprioritization, Public Works Director Kurt Corey indicated that was a possibility. Mr. Poling wanted to keep the ballot measure simple. He thought the 2008 November ballot preferable given the rising costs of construction. Mayor Piercy suggested a circumstance could occur where a street not on the list became a priority because of need and asked if there was a way to add such a street to the list. Mr. Corey said no, not under the current proposal, and recalled that the council had discussed the need for providing the public with assurance about what would be funded. Mayor Piercy thought staff was trying to create flexibility to accommodate unforeseen circumstances, and the resolution seemed to remove that potential. Mr. Corey thought he had heard council resistance to adding such flexibility. He pointed out that the bond measure was one component of the street preservation package and a project of that kind might be funded through the gas tax or some other yet-to-be-identified tax revenue. Mr. Clark was struck by the large number of streets in south Eugene on the project list as opposed to the lack of streets in other areas of the community, including Santa Clara and River Road. He acknowledged the special circumstances surrounding the Santa Clara/River Road area in that large parts of it were not annexed and there were many unimproved roads. He thought that the result might be that voters would not perceive the measure as the solution to the problem. He wanted flexibility within the ten-year funding window to address emerging needs and changing circumstances. He was challenged by that fact as an inequity issue in regard to asking all to pay for it. He suggested staff consider both the importance of communicating the list of projects and reasons for them, as well as why this method of financing was preferable. Ms. Bettman appreciated the refined project list. She spoke to the ad hoc citizens’ group that had been assembled by the manager, which she did not consider representative of the community. There was a statement in the materials related to the use of the General Fund, and she said the council had agreed on funding strategy proposed by a council subcommittee that did not include that fund. Ms. Bettman wanted to support the resolution but felt the further out the City attempted to project the need, the less able it was to predict any variables. In the case of an emergency or natural disaster, there were MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 2 Work Session other funding sources. In regard to taking projects off the list or moving them around, if people were swayed to support the measure by the inclusion of a street of interest to them and it was removed later by a future council, Ms. Bettman thought that a breach of trust. She intended to offer the body a motion that provided for a shorter time line with results that could be seen in five years. It reduced the risks of unpredictability as well as the price tag for the bond, which she considered important in tough economic times. She did not want to support an unsuccessful effort. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation to staff and its attempt to reflect the input of all involved groups. He considered that the bond needed to be simple, affordable, honest, and it must address the issue. He thought simplicity was a key factor to the measure’s package. The measure must reflect a simple logic. He was willing to hear Ms. Bettman’s arguments in regard to affordability. In regard to the issue of honesty, he thought the discussion about adding projects and flexibility was an effort to maintain the integrity of the proposal while still having some opportunity if needed. He supported the proposal for a super-majority to remove a project off the list as a move in the right direction. In regard to changing things around or adding projects to the list, he suggested the measure be made as ironclad as possible, acknowledging that limited flexibility. He said the council needed to have as honest an election as possible, even if it removed an escape clause. Mr. Pryor liked the list and thought its development and prioritization should be the responsibility of professionals, not the council, as long as everything on the list was addressed. He did not want to create flexibility at the expense of perceived honesty. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor’s remarks, saying he stated the issues very well. She wanted to be clear with the voters and was concerned about the amount of money involved. She wanted to ensure that the projects that were presented to the voters were the projects that were built. Ms. Ortiz observed that many of the projects were in downtown. She did not think downtown was part of south Eugene and did not want to see the bond measure perceived by the public as a bond measure for south Eugene. Ms. Ortiz noted that much of her ward was in the county and many streets were unimproved streets, and she wanted to discuss that issue at greater length at a future time. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the changes made by staff as he thought it reflected the council’s discussion. He reiterated that the proposed measure was part of a larger package and it solved only a part of the problem. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the package developed by the council subcommittee did not recommend General Fund cuts in order to fund street repairs, although he acknowledged some General Fund dollars had been allocated for that purpose. Mr. Zelenka said the proposed measure was also cheaper and, at his request, Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that normally the City would issue such a bond and borrow the money upfront; in this case, the City would only borrow the money it needed each year, which reduced the cost. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the change. He asked how the project list would be determined. Mr. Corey said the City considered utility coordination, pavement ratings, and attempted to get to those streets that could be preserved with an overlay before they reached a status that placed them in the reconstruction category. Mr. Zelenka suggested that offered additional flexibility. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Bettman, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Ortiz about limiting the council’s flexibility to change the list. He asked how many streets were affected by factors such as natural disaster or archaeologi- cal finds. He thought those factors quite rare. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the factors were suggested by bond counsel. She said if one of those circumstances actually occurred, the City would not be able to spend money on other projects unless the affected project could be taken off the list. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka thought adding to the project list and taking projects off the list were two different things. Ms. Solomon referred to North Seneca Road and asked why it was not on the list. Mr. Pryor shared that concern. Ms. Solomon was also concerned about the condition of Highway 99 from Four Corners to Sheppard Motors. She determined from Mr. Corey that Highway 99 was under the jurisdiction of ODOT from Washington-Jefferson Bridges and on to the west. Mr. Corey recalled that a section of Seneca Road had been overlaid recently and indicated he would follow-up with Ms. Solomon. Ms. Taylor believed this was the first time the council considered a bond measure for streets. She asked how the council could secure the support of those who lived on unimproved streets and could only see improvements to their streets at great cost to themselves. She asked if they could be exempted from the measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge said no, not as the law was currently structured. Ms. Taylor thought it would be difficult to secure the support of those residents, citing specifically the residents on Crest, Storey, and Friendly streets, who had been waiting for their street project for years, only to find that Bond Lane was improved before their streets. City Manager Ruiz pointed out that many people would benefit from the projects being contemplated as many involved arterial and collector streets used by many residents. Ms. Taylor did not doubt that, but thought it would be challenging to persuade people who could not get their own streets fixed. th Ms. Taylor asked why the project proposed for Harris Street stopped at 28 Avenue rather than going on to th 30 Avenue. Mr. Corey indicated he would find out. Ms. Taylor questioned the proposal for a council super-majority to remove a project. Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff was reflecting the council discussion from the last work session. Ms. Taylor thought five people sufficient. Mayor Piercy thought it important that whatever came out of the discussion had strong council support. She liked Ms. Bettman’s suggestion for a five-year horizon because the public could then see results. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the cost was the same, and the number of years were halved. Mayor Piercy thought the sticker shock for voters was reduced by the lower annual amount proposed by Ms. Bettman. She also thought a shorter list for the shorter time period could look more balanced. Mayor Piercy agreed with Ms. Taylor that those who lived on unimproved streets might be a challenge to persuade to support a bond measure to improve streets because “streets were streets” to people. Ms. Bettman had no interest in supporting an unsuccessful bond measure. She thought it dangerous to take too big a bite and lose, because “that’s it,” and it would be a long time before the council could go back to the voters. She pointed out that utility and gas costs were going up and property values were going down, and the council needed to be cognizant of that. She thought that $81.5 million was too much and ten years too long for citizens to visualize results; she was only willing to support the smaller amount because people would see results and then the council would be able to go out for a second measure. Ms. Bettman said another reason for a shorter time line was greater predictability for the public. She suggested that if projects on the list came in under-budget, that funding could be reallocated by the council by adding another preservation project to the list from the master list. In regard to removing projects from the list, she would not include any provision related to that in the ordinance because she thought there were enough projects for five years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling spoke to the perceived concentration of projects in south and southwest Eugene, and said the measure was aimed at older, more used roads; that needed to be communicated to the public. In regard to the cost of the measure, he pointed out the City would still have the same amount of street repairs at the end of five years, and the voters would forget about the conversation the council was having and believed they had already voted to fix the streets. He recommended the council communicate to the public what it required to fix the streets and propose a ten-year measure. He was not willing to support a five-year measure. Ms. Ortiz thanked the members of the ad hoc citizens’ group. Regarding the time period proposed for the measure, she recalled the approach taken by the Bethel School District and said that $89 million was a lot of money. She emphasized the impact that higher gas prices were having on her constituents. She was inclined to support a lower price tag and demonstrate to the voters that the City could do the job right and distribute the benefits equitably to the community, and thought they would understand. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the communication plan. He was torn between a five-year and a ten-year measure. He understood the argument about cost but wanted to solve the problem that existed. He pointed out that the problem was not a ten-year problem but rather a twenty-year problem, so the council was not solving it with a ten-year bond. He was willing to consider a five-year bond, and in that case wanted to limit the council’s ability to change the list. He suggested the council either eliminate the super-majority section or allow changes to the project list only in the last year of the measure. He thought that was a safety mechanism to allow for changes that came up during the decade. Mr. Zelenka thought that, although it was not on the list as an unimproved street, Crest Drive had a unique place in the discussion and he thought the council should consider including it in the bond as a way to garner more votes. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend time for the item until 1 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark did not want to support something that had no chance of passing. He did not think it wise to fix only half of the problem, and was inclined to support a longer bond measure. He wanted to see the results of the survey work and did not think he could support the motion proposed by Ms. Bettman until then. He continued to be concerned about the distribution of projects and was curious about which would be eliminated if the project list was halved for purposes of reducing the time for the measure. Mr. Clark advocated for the council subcommittee to reconvene to consider the parameters of the funding package. Mr. Pryor thought it worth recalling that the problem cost $173 million, so neither a five- or ten-year measure would solve the problem. The issue for him was which increment of time to support. He was supportive of an increment that was passable. He recalled the school board had continually phased its measures and presented them to the public in that manner, which worked reasonably well. He asked Mr. Corey if the city would have more projects completed at the end of a five-year or a ten-year bond. Mr. Corey said that a five-year bond would fund about half the program reflected on the map of projects. Mr. Pryor said that it was not a matter of being able to do more projects in ten years than in five, but the fact the City would have secured the funding. He suggested the issue was the security of having the funding for the entire ten-year period or going for a smaller five-year period because it was more supportable. He did not know that was the case and agreed with Mr. Clark that the survey would be helpful in that regard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor questioned if making and delivering on one five-year promise was better than asking the voters to trust the council for the entire amount. He recalled the community survey that demonstrated a lack of confidence in the council as it regarded a new city hall, and said he did not know the answer to the question. Ms. Taylor suggested the council could prove it could spend the money responsibly but do it with the wrong roads. She thought that people thought about the annual cost of a bond when they considered their support. She did not think it was any easier for residents to pay for five years as opposed to ten years if the cost was the same. It was not her experience that people cared about the total amount of the measure. She agreed it would be better if all the councilors supported the bond, but it did not sound as though they would. Ms. Solomon agreed that the ten-year plan did not solve the problem, and suggested the issue came down to a leadership issue. She did not favor a shorter period and said the council needed to put forth a bond measure that would solve the problem, and she considered that to be the ten-year bond in combination with the other elements of the funding package. Ms. Bettman said that people were looking both at what they paid annually and how long they paid it. She thought the amount for the ten-year bond too high and the period too long. She pointed out the council reduced the library levy out of concern it would not pass at a higher amount, and it barely passed at the lower amount. Ms. Bettman spoke to the distribution of projects, pointing out there was a higher concentration of arterials and collectors in the affected neighborhoods, reflecting a higher concentration of population. She was not willing to micromanage the list, pointing out there were streets in her ward that badly needed repair, such as th sections of West 18 Avenue, but she was not going to propose it being added. Ms. Bettman said the council needed to start small and build the confidence of the voters. City Manager Ruiz said the council could direct staff to return with two motions, each reflecting a different funding period and amount, on July 28, at which time the survey information would be available. He said that staff would need clear direction about whether projects could be removed. Mr. Zelenka said that the problem was even larger than mentioned, and it simply continued to grow. Ten years was not half of the solution; it was really a question of how often the council went out with a measure. He suggested the second bond measure could be a ten-year bond. Mr. Zelenka asked if there were other survey sources to test the amount proposed. He supported having two motions. He agreed the list should be geographically dispersed. He noted that the November ballot included several other levies, and he thought the council needed to consider that, although it was true of most such measures. He thought doing a five-year bond could build more trust in the City. He anticipated a continual education process faced the City. He did not want a five-year measure to include a way to remove a project. Mr. Clark supported seeing multiple options but he thought there were other factors affecting the trust factor mentioned by Mr. Pryor. He supported a ten-year option and would like to see an adjustment possible, and expressed support for the last-year approach suggested by Mr. Zelenka. He did not see a circumstance where he would be willing to support the five-year option. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring to the council two resolutions at the July 28 meeting; the first resolution would be for a term of five years and represent half of the listed projects that would have been accomplished in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session first five years ($36 million) with no removal clause in the five-year period, and a second draft measure for the ten-year term with all projects in the Agenda Item Summary with a removal clause in place that required action by a super-majority. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to allow changes to the project list, including the addition and removal of projects, in the ten-year period only in the last year, with the super-majority constraint. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include language in the ordinance that al- lowed the funding for projects that came in under-budget to be allocated to another project. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. Mayor Piercy indicated that she would not support any resolution that did not enjoy a council majority. B. B.WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning a Council Employee Complaint Process; Adding Sections 2.400, 2.402, 2.404, 2.406, 2.408, 2.410, and 2.412 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Sec- tion 2.486 of that Code Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Clark asked if the City’s complaint process allowed complainants against City employees to remain anonymous. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones said yes. Mr. Clark noted that as drafted, the ordinance did not include the same standard. He said the ordinance also did not call for the name of the complainant to be kept confidential by the City department that received the complaint. Mr. Klein said that the expectation was that if the complaint went to the City Recorder’s Office (CRO), he or she would not look at it but would immediately forward it to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO). The complaint would be in a sealed envelope when forwarded to the CAO. The CRO was selected because of its public accessibility. Mr. Zelenka thanked the council officers and staff for their work on the ordinance. He thought the ordinance was clear and the proposed process was fair. He said it appeared to cover all contingencies. He shared Mr. Clark’s concern about the use of the CRO as it related to confidentiality. Mr. Pryor did not think it hard to amend the ordinance to indicate the CRO would maintain confidentiality. He added he had not been interested in an extensive process around anonymous complaints, making confidentiality more important. He thought one needed to take responsibility for making complaints and anonymous complaints could lead to frivolity. Mr. Klein said the draft included a clause that allowed the complainant to retain confidentiality and it would cover both the CRO and CAO. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Pryor about confidentiality and anonymous complaints. Ms. Taylor thought that overall the ordinance looked good. Referring to the reference that the CAO would attempt to contact someone by telephone, she wanted something more to ensure confirmation the complain- ant received the information. Mr. Clark suggested the phrase ‘shall make contact.’ Mr. Klein indicated the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session ordinance could be amended but someone might be unreachable in spite of all attempts to contact them. Ms. Taylor asked that the ordinance be amended so that the complainant was asked to confirm receipt of the call. Ms. Taylor asked how and when the CAO would forward the complaint to the council. Mr. Klein said that would occur when the complaint was filed. The intent was to get the council the information as soon as the CAO received it. Ms. Taylor asked why the ordinance called for referral to an attorney outside Lane County. Ms. Bettman said that the council officers were seeking an independent review given the high profile of the employees involved. Mr. Pryor pointed out the council could amend the ordinance but he thought it could work with the ordinance now. He said the council might want to consider amending the ordinance later to include the ability for the council to initiate “no-motion” complaints if the charge was of particularly egregious nature. Ms. Bettman thought the ordinance was not perfect but it was transparent. She said it was difficult to anticipate every circumstance. She noted that the Police Auditor could accept anonymous complaints and the council might want to consider that in the future as well as whistle blower protections. Mr. Clark commended the draft ordinance. He said the whistle-blower aspect was an important component of the discussion. He did not want to treat one type of employee one way and another type another way. He believed there was a good reason that the council accepted anonymous complaints as a part of the Police Auditor process and welcomed education about why the council would want anonymous complaints against police officers but not in this case. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the reference to “next steps” following investigation, Mr. Klein said that the reference was to the human resource aspects of the case, not any criminal investigation. Ms. Bettman pointed out the employees involved were at-will employees and the council officers were not seeking equal treatment with other employees given the availability of union representation and complaint processes. The equal treatment must be between the three council at-will employees; they lacked the same protections and processes as other employees. Mr. Zelenka determined from City Manager Ruiz that he was comfortable with the ordinance as drafted. City Manager Ruiz said the equity was to be found in due process. He noted that the Police Auditor and Municipal Judge had both reviewed the ordinance and had no objections. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, COBURG CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, City of Coburg, and Lane County was held in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 12:00 p.m. with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present from Springfield were Mayor Sid Leiken and Councilors Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie, Anne Ballew, John Woodrow, and Joe Pishioneri. Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Betty Taylor, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, and Chris Pryor. Present from Coburg were Mayor Judy Volta and Councilors John Thiel, Jerry Behney and John Fox. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Faye Stewart and Commissioners Bobby Green, Bill Fleenor, Pete Sorenson, and Bill Dwyer. Mayor Sid Leiken opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. He noted that Councilor Ralston was absent. Mayor Kitty Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. She noted that Councilors Zelenka, Bettman and Poling were absent. Mayor Judy Volta opened the meeting of the Coburg City Council. Councilors Judd, Pech, and Watson were absent. Board Commissioner Sorenson, as senior member of the Board, opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners on behalf of Board Chair Stewart who had not yet arrived. Councilor Betty Taylor arrived at approximately 12:05 p.m. Commissioners Green and Stewart arrived at approximately 12:15 p.m. Mayor Leiken welcomed everyone and asked everyone to introduce themselves. 1. Regional Transportation Work Plan. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 2 Tom Boyatt, Transportation Manager for the City of Springfield, started the staff portion of the meeting. He was joined by Celia Barry, Lane County; Rob Inerfeld, City of Eugene; and Petra Schuetz, Planning Director, City of Coburg. Mr. Boyatt referred to the Regional Transportation Work Plan that was put together by the staff from the four jurisdictions. This program was intended to bring our State required regional transportation planning in consistency with the federally required regional transportation planning. He noted that the City of Coburg had already made a finding of consistency that their Transportation System Plan was consistent with the Federal Regional Transportation Plan. Because of those findings, it was not necessary that they approve the work plan presented. As part of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary, however, Coburg needed to be involved in the development of the Regional Transportation System Plan and that was why they were participating in today’s meeting. Councilor Betty Taylor joined the meeting. Mr. Boyatt noted an email from Bob Courtwright from the Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) which addressed two issues with the work program: 1) It would take some time to complete the land use pieces for Eugene and Springfield, and that the land use forecast needed to occur before the transportation planning could move forward; and 2) The performance measures adopted by the LCDC in 2001 were addressed going ahead into the future. He noted that there was language in the work program that addressed performance measures. These were somewhat separate issues, but were connected in this process. Mr. Boyatt said the work plan had been discussed once in a previous joint elected officials meeting and at least once among jurisdictions during their individual meetings. The work plan (Attachment A in the agenda packet) was not a policy document. Its purpose was to meet transportation planning goal requirements and consistency between state, regional and federal required plans. He noted that there were tasks and a timeline set out in the work plan shown in Attachment A as two columns. He explained the two columns: Major Work Plan Milestone and Ongoing Coordinated Local and MPO Planning Activities. There were two areas in the memo that were the chief areas of inconsistencies at this time. The first was the planned horizon year. The Local Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) had a planned horizon year of 2015, which was the same as the Metro Plan horizon year. The 2007 Federal Regional Transportation Plan had a horizon year of 2031. The second area of inconsistency was project list consistency. No amendments had been made yet to the TransPlan project list since the 2002 adoption. Some of those amendments had been initiated. When they went through the 2031 Federal Plan, all jurisdictions reviewed the project list and updated it based on projects that were feasible and made sense. He gave examples. Mr. Boyatt summarized the bullets in the right hand column of the table in Attachment A. This work plan went out a number of years and flexibility was needed to adapt the plan as needed. Each jurisdiction had policy discussions in that direction. Those discussions were outlined on page 3 of the memo included in the agenda packet. There was agreement to amend the existing TransPlan from planning horizon 2015 to 2023. He explained some of the projects that would be moved from this plan. Commissioners Green and Stewart joined the meeting. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 3 Ms. Barry said the Commissioners met on this item on September 3 and gave helpful comments on what they wanted to see in the plan. Staff had tried to incorporate those ideas in this document, such as more detail on the population forecasting process, that the Lane County board would begin discussions on Metro Plan policy direction and that rural reserve concepts would be included into the work plan. This work plan would evolve and further policy decisions and direction could be incorporated, primarily work done by land management division that affected transportation in the Metro area. She thanked the Commission for their direction. Mr. Boyatt asked if there were questions or if they preferred staff went through the table. Commissioner Sorenson asked about the nature of approval. He asked at what point this became a policy issue and would require further decisions. Ms. Barry said there would be an extensive public involvement process for items related to both the work plan milestones and local and MPO planning activities. The jurisdictions would have their own formal public hearings at which time they would be asked to provide policy decisions. Mr. Boyatt agreed. Each of the jurisdictions still had the same policy decisions that they would normally have. They would then determine how to bring the different priorities for jurisdictions together. The work program did its best to identify when policy decisions were needed. Commissioner Sorenson asked if they could give authority to staff to pursue this for only one year to see how things developed. Mr. Boyatt said the approval requested was to take the work plan to the LCDC who had the legal authority to approve it or not. All of that was intended to meet that requirement in the transportation planning rule (TPR) that our plans needed to be consistent. Ms. Barry said they were required by the transportation planning rule to bring a work plan. Commissioner Sorenson asked what would happen if they didn’t like what staff was doing in a year and didn’t want it to continue. Ms. Barry said they didn’t feel the LCDC would support that as complying with the TPR. She noted that staff from the LCDC were in the audience. Mr. Boyatt said if that was the collective will of the jurisdictions, staff could go to the LCDC with a one year work plan. Commissioner Sorenson asked how much money LCDC was giving the jurisdictions and how much implementing the six-year plan would cost. Mr. Boyatt said it was difficult to know how much it would cost and he wasn’t aware of any funding from the LCDC. There would be discussions with ODOT regarding what fair share of state planning and research funds we could expect for this unfunded mandate. Commissioner Sorenson asked what other projects would not get done if the County diverted their resources to this work plan. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 4 Ms. Barry said the primary work was City work that was related to urban projects and a lot of the analysis would be done by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). The County staff’s plan at this time was to be in the loop on regional discussions. There was some debate among staff about what it meant to comply with the regional language in the TPR. County staff was having discussions with legal counsel who were inclined to think there was a minimal approach, with minimal County staff work. Commissioner Dwyer said there was so much in the horizon. He felt that land use should come before transportation planning. Ms. Barry said she agreed. She referred to the right side of the chart in Attachment A which showed the land use work that had been going on and was a priority. Commissioner Dwyer said the County was looking at rural reserves. Under current law, any time the urban growth boundary (UGB) was increased, everything inside was developed and committed. If farmland was put into the UGB, it was gone and used by the cities for other purposes. He gave examples. He felt they needed to think about that for the future to insure that those people that provided the food source didn’t have to pay exorbitant transportation costs in order to grow food. The Board was looking into what they could do to establish rural reserves. He noted that Springfield had an element in their plan that referred to critical soils, and he felt the City and County needed to work together collectively. There was nothing definitive in Eugene’s plan about preserving critical soils. Commissioner Fleenor said he agreed with Commissioner Dwyer that we needed to move forward th cautiously. He recommended that the City of Eugene move the West 11 Avenue out to Veneta, rather than just Terry Street. With respect to the draft document, he asked if there were any choke points that could stop the process. Ms. Barry said there was co-adoption required at certain points following the public process. If there was disagreement, it could delay the process. Commissioner Fleenor said the elected officials needed to maintain the highest level of communication and cooperation so they agreed at those junctures. th Ms. Barry referred to the West 11 and Terry issue and noted that it was a short term measure so they could move forward for longer term planning. Beyond Terry would be something the County would look at as far as transportation efforts. That was simply to comply with the consistency requirements of the TPR regarding projects. What Commissioner Fleenor was promoting would not be precluded by this project list. Mayor Leiken referred to the final paragraph on page 2 which he felt summed up the plan. He read from the document, “While the work plan provides an estimated timeline for completion it should be noted that the work plan will need to remain flexible in order to respond to data and policy direction derived from the activities in the right-hand column.” He said Springfield Council held City staff’s feet to the fire regarding flexibility. Planning was very challenging because of the global community. He complimented staff for including ‘flexibility’. Councilor Ballew said staff had done a good job of laying out a program of how to get where we needed to be. There was a lot of public involvement. There would be bumps along the way, such as Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 5 the land studies and Comprehensive Plan discussions, but this was a starting point and it worked. They all had the ability to convene if they felt they needed to change course. Commissioner Green complimented staff on their work. He asked what would happen when there was no co-adoption of some of the elements. He asked how that would be resolved. Ms. Barry said the code and plan allowed for the MPC for conflict resolution. Commissioner Green said that needed to be discussed because MPC was not the best source for resolution. Some agency needed to step up to facilitate in those situations. He asked if not having a major arterial such as the West Eugene Parkway could be a barrier for development in that area. Ms. Barry said the Board would have to co-adopt. The west Eugene area would be up to the City of Eugene. Mr. Inerfeld from Eugene said before coming to the Eugene City Council and Lane County Commissioners, staff would do an analysis of the impact of removing the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). In order to remove it, they would need to show that they could balance projects. Removing the WEP from the constrained list would help with that, but they had not yet drawn the model to determine the impact. To address removal of the WEP, they would need to address it on the transportation side. They would work with LCOG to run the model. Commissioner Green asked about the schedule for looking at alternatives for west Eugene. He asked if that was more of a land use issue in working with the property owners in that area. Mr. Inerfeld said adopting of the plan amendment to remove the WEP was scheduled for the first quarter of 2009. They may also make some assumptions that the EmX alignment in west Eugene would be part of the plan in that area. Commissioner Dwyer further discussed rural reserves and noted that they would be outside of the UGB and the Metro Plan. Ms. Barry said part of the Metro Plan included areas outside of the UGB. Coburg was included in the metro planning. Commissioner Dwyer said that was for transportation only, but not land use planning. The Lane County Board needed to think about how to maintain security of our community outside the wishes of any specific jurisdictions. He viewed the concepts of rural reserves as a County function, not metro. Mayor Piercy said the Eugene Council had reviewed the work plan at their last Council meeting, appreciated the work by staff, and had been supportive of the plan. She also noted that Eugene was committed to land use and transportation being addressed together. There was a group of west Eugene leaders that were working together on proposals for how to better move traffic in that area. Those proposals would be brought to the Lane County Commissioners in December. A lot of the people working on the proposals were very vested in transportation and land use. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 6 Councilor Wylie said they were in the middle of an election process. She asked what would happen if a new set of politicians came into positions in January of 2009 that didn’t want the WEP removed, and how that would affect the planning process. Mr. Boyatt said our land use effort looking to 2013 and transportation system planning would keep moving. Mr. Inerfeld said this was a five year or longer work plan so would go through several possible changes in elected officials. This tied in other work that was currently in place. He gave exampled. One of the requirements was to make our local transportation plans consistent with the RTP and the WEP was already removed from that. From Eugene’s perspective it was more a question of when they would remove the WEP, not whether or not it would be removed. He noted that the City of Eugene had initiated the amendments to remove the WEP, but it would not be removed until both the Eugene Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners took action to remove it. That was targeted for the first quarter of 2009 in the work plan. Commissioner Fleenor referred to Councilor Wylie’s comments regarding changes in electors in the near future and Commissioner Sorenson’s suggestion for one-year check-ins on the work plan. He said a recommendation could be to approve this plan for 6 years, with annual reviews to make sure benchmarks were met, co-adoption issues addressed, and issues regarding political changes addressed. That could offer some control on a year to year basis. Councilor Ortiz thanked Springfield for hosting today’s meeting. She said she appreciated that staff wanted the plan to remain flexible. When the community spoke to her, she tried to fight for their values as she expected other elected officials did. She respected others goals and priorities and asked for the same. She noted that the WEP was being removed, but something did need to be done in that area of town as it affected the whole County. She hoped that when the collaborative group that Mayor Piercy put forth brought their ideas to the table, the City of Eugene could move forward. Commissioner Sorenson said several staff had mentioned working with LCOG on the modeling. He asked where funding came from for LCOG and how much staff energy they were putting into the six-year effort. Mr. Boyatt said LCOG was funded by federal pass-through dollars from ODOT, and by the authorization of STP-U (“urban”) funds through the MPC. LCOG staff concurred. There was a combination of options working with LCOG. All of the model work LCOG did for the federal plan should have benefit to development of our local and regional plan as they overlapped. LCOG as the MPO had some prohibition on spending of those dollars. Some of the money the cities and county had identified for these projects could be used for some outside modeling. Commissioner Sorenson discussed rural reserves. He asked what the current work plan was for rural reserves. He didn’t want that to stop in order to implement this policy. Commissioner Dwyer said a rural reserve policy was not limited to the metro area. Ms. Barry said their policy decisions on rural reserves had been with the land management division and she was aware of those. This work program would not preclude them from forming a policy on rural reserves. She would continue to keep in contact with that division regarding that policy. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner Sorenson asked why transportation staff was involved in land use on this project, but not in the development of rural reserves. Ms. Barry said transportation staff was not involved in land use, but they did have a responsibility to ensure that transportation didn’t conflict with policy direction from the Commissioners on land use issues. They were required by the TPR to coordinate land use and transportation planning. Transportation planning staff had a responsibility to listen to the conversations on the other issues. Councilor Clark thanked Springfield for hosting today’s meeting. He asked when the work plan needed to be submitted to the LCDC. Mr. Boyatt said staff had an appointment with that commission on October 16. They could submit the plan in advance for their discussion. Public testimony would be held on October 16. Councilor Clark said that was prior to the Eugene Council removing the WEP, which was scheduled for the first quarter of 2009. He asked how that would be reflected in the work plan. Mr. Inerfeld said the work plan showed that it was anticipated the Eugene Council would remove it in 2009. Councilor Clark asked if the LCDC would make a determination at that time if the land use planning in west Eugene was consistent. Mr. Boyatt said LCDC would just be approving the work plan, not the detail. There was an appeal process if needed. Councilor Clark wanted to know if action taken to this point would put them in conflict with the plan. Mr. Inerfeld said the modeling would identify what was happening in west Eugene and what the future would hold in terms of land use and transportation. Ms. Barry said there had been discussion with legal counsel and staff about what to give to LCDC. One possibility was to only give them what was in the left hand column, because that was the only work in complying with the TPR. The right hand column was for the elected officials’ information. Councilor Taylor said Eugene had already approved the plan. She thanked Springfield for the lunch and for hosting. She noted Councilor Wylie’s remark about the difficulty in making these types of decision during an election year. She said she appreciated Commissioner Dwyer’s comments regarding rural reserves and noted that it tied in with what Eugene had been doing in response to Mayor Piercy’s sustainability. It was important to have food sources close to the people. Cities did have their part in protecting the urban growth boundary. Commissioner Fleenor said consideration needed to be taken regarding financial challenges that all jurisdictions would be facing. Unless there was major property tax reform, each had structural deficits. When they asked where the money would come from for the long-range planning sessions, it was not a trivial question, but significant. Perhaps the jurisdictions needed to consolidate some of Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 8 the planning activities. He gave examples. It was time to consider how those services could be consolidated to provide better services to our citizens. Mayor Piercy said the task at hand was to align the planning processes. She addressed the issues of removal of the WEP. ODOT removed the WEP months ago, so that was no longer debatable. The issue was aligning the plans and dealing with transportation issues in west Eugene. Mayor Leiken asked staff to clarify the role of ODOT with the WEP. Mr. Boyatt said in 2007, the federal regional transportation plan adopted by the MPC did not include the WEP. Several months after that, ODOT reached a no vote conclusion and shut the file, selling off acquired right-of-way. The Eugene Council initiated the proposed TransPlan and removed the WEP from that plan. Commissioner Dwyer agreed the WEP was no longer an issue. He spoke regarding Commissioner Fleenor’s suggestion for check points, tentative adoptions, and choke points and said it was a good idea to include those in the plan. Mayor Piercy noted that Senator Prozanski and Representative Holvey had requested funding for an analysis of the bottleneck area during the upcoming legislative session. Mr. Inerfeld said during the first year, there would be a lot of regional dialogue throughout the process. He explained. COMMISSIONER GREEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN AND FORWARD IT TO THE LAND CONSERVATION . AND DEVELOPMENTCOMMISSION EUGENE CITY COUNCILOR CLARK SECONDED. Commissioner Green said he was supportive of the concept of rural reserve; there was a pilot program being tested by the metro area in Portland and the Board became intrigued by that concept. He suggested caution, however, because they didn’t know what all it meant and the impact it would have on those that lived in the rural areas that may want to make application to develop their own property. He was supportive of this work plan and it should be moved forward to LCDC. The jurisdictions could come back together to determine how to proceed the rest of the way. Councilor Lundberg said she was comfortable with the plan. Eugene had already approved the plan, and it was a simple work plan that would get us where we needed to go. Within this plan was a myriad of ability for the public to weigh in. She supported forwarding it on to LCDC. Councilor Ballew made a friendly amendment to the motion, to adopt the plan, butDIRECT STAFF TO BRING IT BACK TO THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS EACH YEAR TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES. Commissioner Green accepted the amendment. Legal Counsel for Lane County advised that each jurisdiction should have their own motion and second. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 9 COMMISSIONER GREEN MOVED, AND COMMISSIONER STEWART SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN AND FORWARD IT TO THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Commissioner Fleenor asked that a friendly amendment to the motion be added that PRIOR TO . SEPTEMBER 15 OF EACH YEAR STAFF PROVIDE AN ANNUAL UPDATE MEETING Commissioner Stewart said yearly check-ins may not be necessary as there would be many occasions when staff would bring this to each jurisdiction. He didn’t want to put a specific date on when it needed to come back to them. Commissioner Fleenor said those meetings would be on specific issues and he would like the annual discussion to be on the broad range of issues. Commissioner Dwyer said he supported the motion as amended. Mayor Leiken clarified that each jurisdiction needed to vote on this separately. Discussion was held regarding the current motion and the need to be consistent. Legal counsel suggested all jurisdictions withhold voting until all agreed on the motion. Councilor Ballew said she agreed they should approve the work plan, but direct staff to meet each year with the elected officials to report back. Councilor Woodrow agreed. Commissioner Green noted that having the motion stated in the packet would have been helpful and also notation that the motion needed to be voted on separately by each jurisdiction. He asked that staff provide that information in the future. Discussion was held regarding the motion that was on the table. Legal counsel said it might be beneficial to separate this into two motions: the first to approve the work plan and the second motion could be related to an annual check-in meeting. ON BEHALF OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, COUNCILOR CLARK MOVED, AND COUNCILOR PRYOR SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN AND FORWARD IT TO THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Mayor Volta asked if there was an issue because they did not have a quorum. It was noted by Coburg staff member, Petra Schuetz, that Coburg did not need to be a party to the work plan so did not need to vote. ON BEHALF OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, COUNCILOR WYLIE MOVED, AND COUNCILOR PISHIONERI SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN AND FORWARD IT TO THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 10 Councilor Pishioneri said it made sense to collaboratively accept the plan, but he felt Springfield staff automatically gave Council updates on issues as they arose. Each jurisdiction could follow their own policies on the reporting issue. Commissioner Fleenor said Lane County needed to vote or remove the motion regarding annual check-ins. COMMISSIONER GREEN WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER STEWART WITHDREW HIS SECOND ON THE ORIGINAL LANE COUNTY MOTION. ON BEHALF OF THE LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER GREEN MOVED, AND COMMISSIONER STEWART SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION WORK PLAN AND FORWARD IT TO THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF ALL THREE JURISDICTIONS. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ON BEHALF OF THE LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER DWYER MOVED THAT STAFF GIVE THE COMMISSION A ONE YEAR CHECK-IN ON THE PLAN. COMMISSIONER SORENSON SECONDED, AND ASKED FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO RECEIVE AN UPDATE IN ABOUT A MONTH, ON THE RURAL RESERVE PROGRAM. Ms. Barry noted that she would not be the staff person on the Rural Reserve issue. It was noted that Mr. Spartz, would coordinate with the appropriate staff. She asked about regular check-ins with the joint elected officials and if that would be sufficient. Commissioner Fleenor said he wanted a comprehensive view once a year versus point by point. Commissioner Stewart noted that this motion was for Lane County Board of Commissioners only. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. Mayor Leiken thanked the staff from the LCDC for being in the audience today. He said it was key to communicate with staff as we moved forward. Mayor Piercy asked the Eugene City Manager to provide an update on the fires in west Eugene and expressed appreciation for the partnership effort to put out those fires. Mr. Ruiz said there was a significant wildland fire in west Eugene over the weekend. He thanked all the jurisdictions for their help. They were able to control the fires, which could have been significant fires that were threatening structures. It was a good example of regional cooperation. Joint Elected Officials Meeting Minutes September 15, 2008 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Leiken adjourned the meeting at 1:25pm. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Sidney W. Leiken Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon September 17, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Low-Impact Development – Results of Review Fred McVey, Public Works, reported on the results of a review of Low Impact Development (LID) practices for stormwater management in Eugene. He said the purpose of the review was to identify opportunities and barriers to LID, which he defined as a stormwater management and site development strategy that emphasized use of onsite natural features to mitigate impacts of increased stormwater runoff and pollution through practices and design techniques that infiltrated, filtered, stored, evaporated, reduced and detained runoff close to its source. He said those practices included use of swales, rain gardens, green roofs, pervious pavements and other impervious surface reductions and onsite tree and open space preservation. Mr. McVey said key findings determined the City had a solid foundation in place to support LID principles and a range of regulations and programs that supported the use of those practices. He said the City’s progress in this area was substantial, but a variety of opportunities existed to increase the use of LID and were detailed in the report, as were barriers to LID practices. He said the recommendation was to pursue increased implementation through several avenues: administrative adjustments, additional integration of LID practices with other initiatives, development of proposals for land use code amendments and proposals for program enhancements. He said if land use code amendments were pursued, proposed modifications should be developed within the framework of the Planning Division’s annual work plan and Planning Commission priorities. He said policy questions related to whether LID practices should be required or available as an option that was encouraged and facilitated and how best to balance LID with other council priorities. Ms. Piercy noted that the report did not address trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood in which LID practices were implemented. Mr. McVey agreed that maintaining neighborhood character might be a benefit of LID, but the charge was to look at the issue from a stormwater management perspective so that subject was not addressed. Ms. Piercy asked if LID practices were less expensive for the City in the long-term because there were no curb and gutter maintenance requirements. Mr. McVey said that some financial analysis had been done by MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 17, 2008 Page 1 Work Session other communities and in some cases it was less expensive to construct, operate and maintain LID stormwater management practices, but with both types of stormwater management practices in place the City would need to be equipped to maintain them. Mr. Clark asked if the Planning Commission’s current work plan could accommodate LID code amendments or would it need to be incorporated in next year’s work plan. Mr. McVey said there was no explicit part of the current work plan that addressed the subject directly, although some elements were related. He said one approach would be to scrutinize proposed code amendments from the perspective of how they would impact the City’s efforts to implement LID; a more focused effort would need to be specifically included in the work plan. Mr. Clark asked if any of the administrative integration elements would need to be taken into consideration as the City worked toward compliance with House Bill 3337 and analysis of the buildable lands supply. Mr. McVey said the initial administrative adjustments would not have any significant affect on buildable lands, but that would need to be addressed in any proposed code amendments. Ms. Taylor preferred not to use the acronym LID as it was already in use for other subjects. She asked why maintenance costs for LID stormwater management would be comparable to costs for more traditional approaches. Mr. McVey said LID maintenance would require different methods and equipment and the City would need to be equipped to maintain both types of infrastructure. Ms. Taylor asked what council priorities might be in conflict with LID. Mr. McVey said LID regulated development and could create counter-balancing purposes if using natural features onsite was not feasible, such as on a densely developed downtown site. City Manager Jon Ruiz clarified that it could be physically challenging to install LID infrastructure in a densely developed environment. Ms. Taylor asked if reviving the City’s dormant tree ordinance would assist with implementing LID. Mr. McVey said there was some potential to further restrict tree removal, consistent with LID practices, although there was some tree protection already in place. Ms. Taylor asked staff to determine the status of the tree ordinance that had been remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Mr. Pryor expected there would be conflicts between LID implementation and other policies and encouraged the City to actively seek out those points of conflict so they could be resolved early in the process. He said preserving the ability to incorporate new technologies as they emerged, such as permeable surfaces, was an important aspect of LID implementation. Ms. Solomon said the conflicts alluded to underscored the importance of maintaining LID practices as elective, not mandatory. She said the City should encourage the use of LID principles, but not require them. She urged staff to continue to develop incentives to use LID practices as that was a more productive way to increase participation. Mr. McVey said making LID optional or mandatory was one of the policy decisions the council would need to make. Ms. Piercy agreed with the use of incentives to encourage green practices. She said that Portland was a leader in the area and there were many good examples that could be studied. Ms. Taylor preferred to require the use of green practices instead of making them discretionary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 17, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to move forward with efforts to increase implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) practices through administrative adjustments, additional integration of LID prac- tices with other initiatives, development of proposals for land use code amend- ments, and development of proposals for other program enhancements. Mr. Clark asked how staff interpreted the motion in terms of administrative adjustments and creating incentives. He wanted to support the motion, but did not want to make LID practices mandatory as that could increase the cost of housing in the community. Mr. McVey explained that easily implemented administrative changes could range from clarifying project design and management standards to modifying design standards to specifically recognizing incorporation of LID practices and principles. He said that the more complex actions, such as code amendments, would take more time and ultimately be a policy decision by the council. Ms. Ortiz said she could support the motion and hoped that as LID implementation progressed it was not made mandatory because of the potential conflicts with development in a densely developed area. The motion passed, 6:0. B. WORK SESSION: City Manager Performance Evaluation Process Alana Holmes and Denise Smith, Human Resources, presented an overview of the framework for the City Manager evaluation process. Ms. Holmes noted that the evaluation would not be conducted until spring 2009, but she wanted feedback and direction from the council on the proposed process in order to finalize the timeline and materials. Ms. Smith reviewed the proposed categories to be addressed in the evaluation: policy facilitation and implementation, financial management, community leadership and organizational leadership. She said three to five behaviors would be identified in each category. Ms. Taylor expressed concern with being asked to judge behaviors of which the council had no knowledge. She thought that more communication from the City Manager about what he was doing in each of those areas during the year would be helpful. She said it was good to have two-way communications about the council’s expectations and the manager’s activities well in advance of the actual evaluation. Ms. Smith said that the council would identify behavior measurements and how the relevant information would be obtained; the City Manager would then be aware of what information the council required and how that could be provided, such as through discussions or written reports. She said part of the process would include gathering feedback from others to help inform the council’s actions. Ms. Taylor reiterated that it was important to her to have the City Manager inform the council about his actions, such as deciding the shift responsibilities among departments or implementing other organizational changes or use of resources. Mr. Ruiz said it would be helpful to understand how best to provide the council with the information it required. He wanted to know if communications, including one-on-one meetings with councilors, were not working well. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 17, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor suggested that a report from the City Manager should be a regular agenda item as typically the one-on-one meetings were focused on issues related to wards or individual councilors’ interests. Mr. Ruiz asked what type of information should be in the report. Ms. Taylor said the report should inform the council about things the City Manager was planning or thinking about, improvements to the organization or problems the council should know about. She said the manager was engaged in many activities of which the council was not aware. Mr. Pryor said it was challenging to measure the performance of a chief executive when the council was not aware of many activities, which is why many organizations had moved to a 360 degree evaluation approach. He said that type of evaluation could include the type of information the council would need to assess performance. He did not feel the need to pass judgment on the City Manager’s decisions and plans; he did feel the need to determine whether those decisions had worked. He said the council’s role was to evaluate the City Manager’s success and accomplishments and felt it would be relatively easy to obtain feedback from the organization and community to make that determination. His role was to evaluate the results of the City Manager’s decisions and actions, not micromanage City operations. Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor’s remarks. He felt the information provided in weekly newsletters and briefings was useful in determining how the organization was succeeding. He said the council should evaluate whether the organization was high functioning in areas such as public safety. He noted that during the City Manager selection process many questions related to issues, goals and concerns had been developed and those could be helpful in crafting the evaluation document. Ms. Ortiz was satisfied with the four proposed evaluation categories. She said she hoped the personal attacks that had occurred during previous City Manager evaluations could be avoided in future evaluations. She said it would be helpful to have information about how the City Manager’s time was spent and the groups and individuals with whom he had contact. She wanted to know if the City Manager interacted primarily with executives and managers or also talked to line employees as she felt it was important to acknowledge and validate all employees. Mr. Poling said it was good to receive feedback from the City Manager, but did not want to burden him with providing the details of his daily activities. He said the primary question was whether the City Manager and the organization, through his direction, accomplished the goals and directives the council set forth. He liked the four evaluation categories, but did not like assigning numerical values to levels of performance. He felt the City Manager did a good job of keeping the council informed and liked receiving phone calls about emerging issues. He wanted feedback from others inside and outside the organization before conducting a performance evaluation. Ms. Piercy wanted the evaluation process to be helpful and provide feedback that would help the City Manager achieve his goals and the council’s goals. Ms. Taylor also did not like the numerical scoring method of evaluating performance. She wanted information about the City Manager’s activities from a broad perspective, not the details of daily activities. She said not all projects were successful and would not condemn someone just because of a failure that might be out of their control; it was commendable that the effort was made. She was not comfortable with receiving anonymous feedback. Ms. Smith explained there were advantages and disadvantages to anonymous feedback; it was sometimes difficult to interpret anonymous information, but often people provided more honest information if people could provide it anonymously. She said the council could MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 17, 2008 Page 4 Work Session receive a wide range of information from very positive to very negative and its challenge was to interpret that information and identify themes. Ms. Ortiz emphasized that her interest was in having enough information to conduct a positive and constructive evaluation and identify the City Manager’s goals, achievements and successes. Mr. Poling said the City Manager’s self-evaluation could include his personal goals and perceptions of the council’s expectations. He liked Mr. Clark’s suggestion to incorporate some of the selection process questions to craft the evaluation instrument. Mr. Pryor stressed the importance of defining and developing measurements of success. He said success was not always the end result; it could also be the attempt to do something. He said if the 360 degree evaluation approach was used, anonymity was not helpful, but assuring confidentiality of information provided was. He would also prefer not to have a numerical scale as part of the evaluation. Ms. Piercy commented that many organizations used an online tool to obtain feedback during an evaluation. Mr. Clark encouraged an analysis of the City Manager’s work through the lens of innovation. Mr. Ruiz commented that the council’s retreat in early 2009 could include a discussion of a feedback loop for the council, City Manager and staff to assure that policies and goals were being addressed by the organization. Ms. Holmes determined that the council agreed with the proposed timeframe. The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 17, 2008 Page 5 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon September 22, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Ms. Piercy announced that a fund raiser would be held September 23 for Michael Clay and she had attended th the grand opening for the WestTown on 8 housing development. She attended celebration ceremonies for th recovering addicts. She noted that St. Vincent DePaul would celebrate its 175 anniversary and she would be joined by Ms. Ortiz on September 30 for a one-on-one meeting with constituents. Ms. Bettman urged staff to research improved technology that would allow councilors to participate in meetings via telephone. She said the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission would hold a public hearing on September 25 regarding rate increases. She said the additional rate increase was necessary to offset the loss of revenue from the closure of Hynix in order to satisfy revenue requirements for capital bonds. Mr. Zelenka remarked on the theft of catalytic converters from automobiles and asked for a memorandum from staff on measures the City could take to prevent such thefts. Ms. Ortiz said the Railroad Citizen Advisory Committee would meet on September 24 to review a report on health issues and concerns. She announced that the Emerald Awards had named PeaceHealth as business of the year. Mr. Clark reported that the Police Commission met jointly with the Civilian Review Board on September 11 and there was an extensive discussion of the respective roles of both bodies. He said the Police Commission was conducting a detailed analysis of staffing levels in the Police Department. He said the Human Rights Commission met on September 16 and spent most of the time finalizing its work plan for the coming year. Ms. Taylor asked staff to prepare a resolution advocating for a department of peace for the council’s th consideration. She noted that a mural at WestTown on 8 had been created by teenagers. She reported on a tour of recreation programs in Glendale, Arizona that she participated in as a member of the Human Development Committee of the National League of Cities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 22, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor reported that the Red Cross facility had also experienced the theft of catalytic converters and those thefts were raising community awareness of the problem of metal theft. He said the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations included the issue in its recommendations. He intended to make a motion at the regular meeting requesting funding to complete the West Eugene Collaborative’s (WEC) work. Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary reminded the council of a tour of neighborhood matching grant sites. She said the “Tom Brokaw Reports” show was in Eugene filming various sustainability projects in the community. She said the issue of metal theft was being discussed at the regional level and partners were working together to find solutions. Ms. Piercy commented that Eugene’s Slug Queen had been featured in the Wall Street Journal. B. WORK SESSION: Willamette Street Study Chris Henry, Public Works, said the Willamette Street Study grew out of the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS), which considered converting Willamette Street from one-way to two-way operation. He thth noted that conversion of the section between 13 and 18 avenues had occurred, but concerns had been thth raised by businesses and the neighborhood about converting the remaining segment between 18 and 20 avenues. He said the Willamette Street Study was further analysis of that issue and a stakeholder group met over an 18-month period to discuss possible solutions; that group developed the recommendations presented to the council. He described the process used by the stakeholder group to develop its report on existing conditions and an alternatives analysis, as well as the major issues that were taken into consideration. He said the group concluded that any degradation in level of service in the intersections analyzed was unacceptable and that was reflected in the final recommendation that Willamette Street remain one-way thth between 18 and 20 avenues, pending a major study to find an alternative route for a large portion of commuter traffic. He thanked stakeholder group members for their efforts and said the City Manager recommended acceptance of the group’s recommendation. Mr. Pryor agreed with the City Manager’s recommendation. He asked if there were financial implications for the other recommendations, such as studying bicycle lanes and adding bump outs, and whether they could be accommodated in other studies that were being conducted. Mr. Henry said there would be costs to implement, but those recommendations represented operational changes. He said the feasibility of those would be further investigated and the City intended to implement them. He said many of the improvements could be made for tens of thousands of dollars. Ms. Taylor asked if there had been consideration of changing Oak Street from one-way to two-way at the same time. Mr. Henry said that was significantly different from what was proposed. He said that was not considered during the Willamette Street Study, but was included in the 2004 CATS update. He said there was some discussion of changing the direction of the Pearl and Oak streets couplet so it could connect with Amazon Parkway to handle commuter traffic. Ms. Taylor asked if there was a long-term plan to make all streets two-way. Mr. Henry said CATS adopted several strategies that identified streets for conversion from one-way to two-way; some of those conversions had already occurred. He said there were no plans for conversion beyond those strategies. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 22, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked why an outside consultant was hired if there was capacity on staff. Mr. Henry said the capacity for the intersection analysis was limited within the organization and there were no staff resources to perform the calculations and gather data within the required timeframe. Mr. Zelenka asked if the same group of stakeholders met over the entire course of the study. Mr. Henry said there were some changes among representatives, but a majority of the group remained consistent throughout the process. Mr. Zelenka asked if the stakeholder group’s recommendation was unanimous. Mr. Henry said one member opposed the recommendation. Mr. Zelenka said he understood that the advisory group would come back to the council with a solution to problems at the intersection, but the recommendation was to do nothing. He was not comfortable with that outcome that would leave the intersection as it was for a long time. Mr. Henry said the group recognized that the intersection was not working well, but their analysis determined that changing that section of Willamette Street would make it worse by increasing congestion at the intersection. He said their goal was th to not degrade the level of service at the 18 Avenue and Willamette Street intersection. Mr. Zelenka asked if there were estimates for the cost and timeline of the study recommended by the stakeholder group. Mr. Henry said it would be an ambitious effort, but had not risen to the level of a th transportation priority within the City, which was focused on Beltline and West 11 Avenue. Ms. Bettman said she was disappointed with the recommendation as it would not move a solution forward. She asked about the cost of the traffic analysis. Mr. Henry said the cost was over $10,000. Ms. Bettman asked how much more it would have cost to factor in an analysis of an Oak and Pearl streets conversion, and Amazon Parkway, to determine the impact those additional changes might have on the level of service. She asked why the City’s transportation engineers agreed with the stakeholder group’s recommendation when they had written the CATS recommendations for conversion. Mr. Henry said the thth CATS implementation strategy was for an analysis of the conversion of the segment between 18 and 20 avenues to be performed in collaboration with a stakeholder group and a recommendation brought back to the council. He said traffic engineers felt it would be disingenuous to make a recommendation that was inconsistent with the stakeholder group’s conclusion. He explained that the analysis determined that operation of signals would meet the City’s standards if the conversion was made, but stakeholders did not find this acceptable because of the impacts on the interests the group represented. Ms. Bettman asked about the feasibility of including Pearl and Oak streets in the further study. Mr. Henry said the complexity of the work grew as more signalized intersections were added and, combined with the necessary land use work, it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said staff resources did not exist to do that type of work in-house and there was no budget for those activities. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Henry said the conversion of Willamette Street between thth 13 and 18 avenues was part of a pavement preservation project and with the construction of Fire Station th #1 at 13 Avenue and Willamette Street two-way access in the immediate vicinity of the station was desirable. Mr. Zelenka asked if there was data on the impacts of that conversion. He noted that the report was anecdotal and lacked hard data and asked upon what the stakeholder group’s conclusions were based. Mr. Henry said technical memoranda were prepared by the consultant, including existing crossing opportunities MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 22, 2008 Page 3 Work Session thth for pedestrians between 13 and 18 avenues. He said the gap analysis concluded there were adequate gaps th for crossing most of the time, except at 15 Avenue. th Mr. Zelenka asked what it would cost to determine the impact of converting Willamette Street between 18 ththth and 20 avenues and Oak Street between 13 and 20 avenues to two-way operation. Mr. Henry estimated the cost at $50,000, but said the project would need to be scoped. Mr. Zelenka did not want a solution to the problem to be deferred for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Pryor agreed that the study should not take forever or cost $50,000. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to accept the recommendation of the volunteer citizen stakeholder committee that Willamette Street remain one-way thth southbound between 18 and 20 avenues pending a major study that would iden- tify alternative routes for a large amount of the traffic and be done in a timely fash- ion. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add the following recommendations: thth 1. Adding a southbound bicycle lane on Willamette from 18 to 20 if it can thth operate safely with no net loss of parking between 18 and 19, and a thth minimum loss of parking between 19 and 20. We also recommend this bicycle lane connect to the existing bicycle lane that currently ends mid- thth block between 17 and 18, if this can be safely done. thth 2. Adding bump outs (sidewalk extensions) at 18 and 19 for safer pedes- trian crossing while retaining parking. 3. Maintaining the traffic diverter and island refuge for pedestrian crossing at th 20. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor said she had hoped that the study would identify ways to mitigate effects on businesses and improve pedestrian safely, with Oak Street a part of the solution. She said the motion seemed to repeat the council’s action of several years ago. Mr. Henry said CATS had looked at Oak Street, but could not find a way to meet service levels if there was a conversion to two-way; Willamette Street was the only opportunity at that time. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to direct the City Manager to direct staff to bring back a timeline and cost estimate for expanding the Willamette Street conversion analysis to include conversion of the entire lengths of Oak and Pearl streets to two-way operation and the impact on the level of service on Willamette Street. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Henry estimated that information on study options could be provided to the council in a month. Ms. Solomon arrived at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Ortiz said she would support the motion, but wanted to assure that the City’s current priorities, specifically Beltline between River Road and Interstate 5, were retained unless other direction was given. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 22, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Clark commented that relocation of the Ems to the new baseball stadium would likely decrease pressure on the intersection during the season. Mr. Zelenka agreed the City’s biggest priority was Beltline. He said that High and Pearl streets were a couplet, as were Oak and Willamette streets. He said if changes to Oak and Pearl were considered in the study, then High Street should also be included. He asked for clarification on what accepting the stake- holders’ recommendation meant. Mr. Henry explained that it would mean there would be no change in Willamette Street pending further study. Ms. Medary added that the amended motion would also require a timeline and budget for that study. Ms. Bettman asked about the status of adopting an access management strategy for the City. Mr. Henry said staff had been working on language with the assistance of the City Attorney’s office. Mark Schoening, city engineer, said the Oregon Department of Transportation and Lane County representatives were also involved in the project and a department advisory committee would be convened to develop a report for the council on the arterial and collector street system in early 2009. Ms. Bettman stressed that a solution should preserve parking for businesses, protect the neighborhood from cut-through traffic and create safe automobile circulation patterns. The amended motion passed, 7:0. . Consent Calendar C A. Approval of City Council Minutes of June 9, 2008, City Council Meeting; July 9, 2008, Work Session; and August 11, 2008, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4955 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Ex- th emption for the Property Located at 1070 West 6 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Property Account Number 0473056) (St. Vincent DePaul Society of Lane County, Inc.) D. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of July 23, 2008 E. Approval of Overseas Travel Request Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve items A, B, C and D on the Consent Calendar. Mr. Zelenka pulled Item C. The Consent Calendar, with the exception of items C and E, was approved, 7:0. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department th explained that Item C was acquisition of an existing housing facility on West 6 Avenue and conversion of a small number of apartments for homeless veterans. He said it was the third phase of an ongoing project and would use Community Development Block Grant funds and Housing Rehabilitation program funds. He said St. Vincent DePaul had also secured federal and State resources to supplement local funds. He noted the tax exemption was for 20 years. Mr. Zelenka asked how much the total exemption would be. Mr. Sullivan said he would report back with that information. Mr. Zelenka commended the project and St. Vincent DePaul’s work on housing. He intended to support the tax exemption as it was warranted in this case. Item C on the Consent Calendar was approved, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 22, 2008 Page 5 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 6:47p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 22, 2008 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon September 24, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka (via telephone). COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that Mr. Zelenka was participating by telephone and Mr. Poling had a family emergency. A. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Recruitment Process Alana Holmes, Human Resources director, introduced Becky Hopkins, who was also working on the recruitment process. She said the purpose of the work session was to select an executive recruitment firm to conduct the search for a new police auditor. She said that Councilors Pryor, Taylor and Ortiz interviewed the three finalists—Alliance Resources Counseling, Bob Murray & Associates and Mercer Group—on September 17 and could discuss their thoughts about those firms. Mr. Pryor said his first choice was Murray because of their previous experience recruiting police auditors and capacity to do the job. His second choice would be Alliance, which had good recruitment experience, although not specifically with police auditors, and a good retention rate for individuals they had placed. He thought that Mercer had misunderstood some of the questions during the interview. Ms. Taylor said her first choice was Mercer as they seemed to have a good understanding of what was needed and focused on integrity. She said they had a good retention rate with most placements lasting more than five years. She also liked their focus on community values. Her second choice would be Alliance and she would not consider Murray. Ms. Ortiz liked both Murray and Alliance with Alliance demonstrating knowledge of oversight systems in other communities and the unique nature of each program. She said Murray had knowledge of the San Jose oversight system, which was one of the best models. She did not think that longevity in a position should be a factor. She liked Mercer’s emphasis on the importance to candidates of family support. Mr. Clark said he listened to a recording of the interviews and echoed Mr. Pryor’s remarks. He said that Murray already had a good understanding of the community through the city manager recruitment process. He could support Alliance, but not Mercer. He reminded the council that Mr. Poling’s only choice was Murray. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pryor and would support Murray as the first choice, with Alliance as her second choice. Ms. Bettman said she had listened to a recording of the interviews. She said the recruitment process was “boilerplate” and understanding it did not mean a firm had the specific expertise the council was seeking. She would entirely rule out Murray and Alliance and noted that the Alliance representative was a personal and professional colleague of the City Manager, Jon Ruiz, and both firms focused their outreach on police departments. She supported the selection of Waldron & Company because its outreach was broader and it had offices across the country. Mr. Zelenka indicated he had not listened to the interviews, but would support selection of any of the three finalist firms. Ms. Bettman said the Waldron application had impressed her the most and she cited the extensive list of resources they had listed. She urged selection of Waldron and said she would be very reluctant to support Alliance and would not support Murray. She strongly favored Mercer. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Holmes explained that the initial screening process simply summarized the information in each application into several categories. Ms. Hopkins said that Mercer was shown as somewhat lowering in its understanding of the police auditor because of its focus on the public safety candidate pool. She said that all of the organizations had the ability to educate themselves on what the appropriate candidate pool would be. Mr. Zelenka expressed concern about selecting Murray because of the council’s prior experience with them. He liked Alliance because of their police auditor recruitment experience. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to hire Bob Murray & Associates as the executive recruitment firm to provide services related to the recruitment and se- lection of the police auditor. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute Alliances Resources Coun- seling for Bob Murray and Associates. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Bettman vot- ing no. Ms. Taylor said she was voting for Alliance because she did not want Murray. The main motion as amended passed 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Mid-Point Evaluation for Judge Wayne Allen Kristie Hammitt, municipal court administrator, said that typically there is a mid-point evaluation submitted though council packets but not a Council Work Session. Judge Allen had requested one in order to bring some issues to the council’s attention. She referred to the summary of results from a survey of 100 individuals on Judge Allen’s overall judicial performance. Judge Allen said he requested a mid-point evaluation in order to generate council support for growth of the court. He said the City needed to separate itself from the County in terms of quality of life cases and MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2008 Page 2 Work Session develop a “law and order” reputation for those types of cases. He said matrixing was doubling and 40 percent of those sentenced to a road crew did not show up. He stressed the importance of being able to enforce penalties, otherwise the system was perceived as powerless. He asked the City to step forward and assure there were enough jail beds, courtrooms and staff to take care of quality of life cases. He said that traffic enforcement was now a much smaller part of the caseload and quality of life cases were steadily increasing. He said courts should not be vindictive, but should be taken seriously. Ms. Piercy asked how many additional jail beds were required. Judge Allen said 10 to 12 more beds, or around 30 beds total, would meet the court’s needs. He noted that Springfield was constructing a new jail and the judge and prosecutor were anxious for it to be completed. He felt that Springfield’s higher level of enforcement would probably drive some offenders to Eugene when the jail was opened. Ms. Piercy agreed that the City did not want to signal that people could do anything and there would be no consequences. She wanted the City to continue to be a good partner with Springfield and Lane County to shore up the public safety system, but agreed that Eugene needed to focus resources on its own problems as that was what citizens expected. Mr. Clark agreed with Judge Allen and asked for written proposals for the next budget cycle. He wanted an analysis of what level of resources was required to meet minimum needs and what was required to achieve optimal capacity. He said that many counties were experiencing similar public safety problems and hoped that the State would revoke Senate Bill 1145 and take more responsibility for offenders serving longer sentences to free up space in the County’s facility. Judge Allen agreed that reversing the effects of SB 1145 was a good first step and the State should take responsibility for a greater share of the problem. Mr. Clark asked the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to consider lobbying the legislature to revoke SB 1145. He challenged Judge Allen to develop some creative ideas that the City could pursue during the next session. Ms. Taylor supported having Judge Allen report to the council periodically on court issues. She asked if the exclusion ordinance would place a greater burden on the court. Judge Allen said that would depend on the objective criteria that officers used to focus on the core problems. If that effort was successful he did not think it would impose a significant burden on the court, but he did not have a sense at this point of how many defendants the court would actually see. Judge Allen said there was a great need for more space for the court Ms. Taylor asked if people were locked up unnecessarily and related a situation in which a woman was jailed because of too many parking tickets. Judge Allen said that did not happen in municipal court. He assured the council that jail beds were not used unnecessarily. Ms. Taylor asked if work crews could be assigned to cleanup activities in the downtown area. Judge Allen said the City determined the assignment of work crews. He said Public Works managed the City’s crews and the council could indicate its priority for that work. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could use any of Springfield’s jail beds. Judge Allen said there had been some discussion of purchasing beds when the jail was constructed; however, the Springfield jail had limited use because it could not take female inmates or provide certain services. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor stated he was impressed with the performance ratings and would appreciate more frequent discussions with Judge Allen about how the court system in Eugene could better serve the people. He said people judged the quality of service provided by the City by quality of life crimes; if there were no sanctions, the system was a sham. He said if 10 additional jail beds would signal that the City was serious about dealing with those crimes he was willing to consider the judge’s budget proposals. Ms. Bettman said capacity had been a problem for some time and she intended to request a discussion of the facility reserve. She said funds that had been reserved for a new city hall could be considered for expanding the court. She felt the County would have $3 million in additional funds if it would deny urban renewal districts. She said removing the prohibition on using system development charges (SDCs) for public safety would also help resolve the problem and hoped that would be supported by the CCIGR. She noted that the different styles of enforcement in Eugene and Springfield reflected different community values and felt the public would not support merging public safety departments. Ms. Ortiz thanked Judge Allen for his years of service and impressive performance statistics. She pointed out that the exclusion ordinance was not yet being enforced and had therefore not contributed to space or capacity problems. She asked if the municipal court dealt with metal theft. Judge Allen said if the value was under $750 it was a misdemeanor and would be handled by the municipal court; above that amount it was a felony and would go to circuit court. Mr. Zelenka also thanked Judge Allen for the quality of his service, as demonstrated by the survey results. He also wanted to have more frequent discussions with the judge and periodic reports from the municipal court and police auditor would be helpful to the council. He asked for a memorandum on options for increasing the number of jail beds. He was interested in pursuing State funding for the public safety system and pursuing repeal of SB 1145. He asked staff to look at options for expanding the court’s space and moving functions such as Human Resources to other space. Ms. Piercy said the city hall discussion had been postponed several times, but it would include reconfigura- tion of space. She appreciated the performance evaluation statistics and asked if people who had been to court were surveyed about their experience. Ms. Hammitt said a customer satisfaction survey was conducted annually and the satisfaction rate was normally around 90 percent. She would provide the council with a copy of the survey and said that information gleaned from it was used to improve court services. She said the formal survey evaluating Judge Allen’s performance was conducted every four years and included responses from people who had appeared in court. Ms. Bettman said the council had discussed a survey of people who had used the police auditor system and suggested that parallel systems could be used for the police auditor and the judge, both of whom were council employees. She said that Human Resources could help coordinate that effort. Mr. Clark was in favor of looking for creative solutions during the next budget cycle. He said that recent discussions with the County had resulted in innovative approaches to using different resources and a similar approach should be explored at the State level. He said the public safety system in Lane County had been on the brink of failure for several years and asked if the City was in a similar situation. Judge Allen said that was the reason he wanted to address the council; the City’s system was close to becoming dysfunc- tional. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Clark clarified that he wanted a memorandum that would identify the bare minimum necessary to function and what would be a sufficient level of operations. He said Judge Allen had a unique perspective of the public safety system and asked for an analysis of the system as a whole. Ms. Piercy said it was difficult for the pubic to understand that there were empty jail beds that could not be utilized because of lack of staffing and other deficiencies. She said there was capacity in facilities if the resources were available to use it. Ms. Ortiz observed that simply providing jail beds was not enough; there also had to be medical, psycho- logical and educational services and the County was also responsible for housing federal prisoners. She said the Springfield facility would not provide those services and would only handle inmates who did not need those services. She was very supportive of exploring options for acquiring more jail beds. Judge Allen said some of the problems would not be solved by more jail beds; they had to be solved by social services that did not exist. Ms. Piercy thanked Judge Allen for his presentation. She hoped that the City could work with its partners to restore the public safety system. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to have a work session on the bar- gaining process as soon as possible. The motion passed, 6:0, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bett- man, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Clark, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka voting yes. Ms. Solomon expressed her concern with conducting a vote on having a work session instead of following the established procedure. She hoped that privilege would be extended to other councilors. The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2008 Page 5 Work Session ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 7, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Council President Pryor called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that the meeting was for the purpose of interviewing candidates for vacant positions on the Toxics Board and Budget Committee. The candidate for the Toxics Board, Greg Harrows, was asked the following questions: 1. Why are you interested in serving on the Toxics Board? 2. Please tell us about your experience advocating for the public's right to know. 3. The Toxics Board is intentionally composed to include a range of views. How do you in- tend to work collaboratively in this context? 4. The Toxics Board works with highly technical information and materials. What experience, abilities, or skills do you intend to use to discuss and communicate these types of issues with other board members and to the public? 5. In what ways do you believe the Toxics Right-to-Know Program has been of benefit to the Eugene community? 6. Do you have any questions of us? Candidates interviewed for vacancies on the Budget Committee included Deanna Kilger, Sandra Ludeman, Mary Ann Holser, Jeffrey Mills, Brian Kurz, Doug Smith, and Joe Potwora. Candidates were asked the following questions: 1. In your opinion, which City issues should be given the highest priority by the Budget Commit- tee over the next four years, and which of these do you consider to be the most important is- sue, and why? MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 7, 2008 Page 1 Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews 2. In the recent past, Eugene's budget has faced budget deficits of several million dollars, and we are looking at deficits into the future. How would you go about balancing the budget, and what are the most important things to consider in balancing the budget? What would be your general strategy balancing the budget? Where would you look for reductions and savings? 3. Do you have suggestions for ways to improve citizen understanding of the City’s financial conditions, budget priorities, and process? 4. Do you have any questions of us? Mr. Zelenka arrived after the Toxic Board interview and prior to the Budget Committee interviews. Mr. Clark arrived between the interviews of Budget Committee candidates Mary Ann Holser and Jeffrey Mills. Following the conclusion of each interview, Mr. Pryor informed the candidate that the council would make a decision soon and candidates would be contacted about the appointments. Mr. Pryor adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 7, 2008 Page 2 Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews ATTACHMENT H M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 14, 2008 6:15 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Poling, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman. In the absence of Council President Pryor, senior Councilor Betty Taylor called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. The candidates for the Planning Commission included Randy Hledik, Sarah Whitney, Mark Baker, Brian Kurz, and Jeffrey Mills. Each candidate was asked the following questions: 1. Why did you apply for the Planning Commission and what do you hope to contribute? 2. What key issues would you hope to address as a member of the Planning Commission? 3. The Eugene Planning Commission often works on lengthy processes and decisions as a group. Describe your prior skills and experience that will assist you in working with the Planning Commission in a collective manner. 4. Please describe how you would contribute to the diversity of views on the Planning Com- mission. In what ways would you seek to bring the perspectives of under-represented members of our community to the Planning Commission? 5. The Planning Commission must often balance competing interests when reviewing plan- ning documents and making land use decisions. In your opinion, what are the most impor- tant factors for the Planning Commission to consider in its decisionmaking? - Mr. Zelenka arrived during Mr. Hledik’s interview and left after the Planning Commission interviews were concluded. Ms. Solomon left after the Planning Commission interviews were concluded. Candidates interviewed for vacancies on the Human Rights Commission included Robert Adler, Jairus Godeka, Rosa Chavez, and Keevan Labowitz. Candidates were asked the following questions: MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 14, 2008 Page 1 Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews 1. Why should you be chosen to be a Human Rights Commissioner? 2. What is the City government’s role in addressing human rights? 3. What are the most important human rights issues facing the City of Eugene and what are your ideas for addressing those? 4. What do you think are the differences between volunteering for a community human rights group and volunteering for the municipal human rights commission? 5. We recognize that many people apply to serve on the Human Rights Commission because they are passionate about a particular group or a specific issue. It’s important that com- missioners have the ability to work on a range of human rights issues. Assess your ability to work with others on issues that may not be your top concern. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 14, 2008 Page 2 Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews