HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes
Meeting Date: November 10, 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 23, 2008, Work Session, July 28, 2008, City Council Meeting,
and October 8, 2008, Work Session.
ATTACHMENTS
A.July 23, 2008, Work Session
B.July 28, 2008, City Council Meeting
C.October 8, 2008, Work Session
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\M081110\S0811102A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
July 23, 2008
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer
Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She apologized
for having to leave the meeting early to attend a personal commitment.
Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Ortiz for a motion.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the final council action on the University of
Oregon’s alley and street vacation requests be scheduled for August 13 instead of September
8.
Ms. Ortiz recalled the council’s decision on July 21 to schedule final action for September 8. She had thought
about the decision since then and realized she had been uncomfortable with her vote at the time it occurred.
She was concerned about the impact of the September 8 date on the University of Oregon’s (UO) ability to
move forward with the arena project.
Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the possibility of including an emergency clause in the
ordinance, City Attorney Glenn Klein said any ordinance would take effect in 30 days, and it would require six
votes to include an emergency clause. He said the UO had indicated it wanted to start the project by
September 30, and the ordinance would not be in effect on September 30.
Ms. Ortiz said the UO wished to purchase a piece of land owned by the City but encompassed by UO
property. Other issues became involved, bringing politics into the picture. However, that was not what she
thought the council should be voting on. She suggested that cooperation between the major institutions in the
community could be of mutual benefit and could lead to increased dialogue. She emphasized the importance of
jobs for the community and for her constituents, and said she was not willing to threaten the family-wage jobs
created by the arena project for even one day. She did not think the council could take the amount of money
involved lightly.
Ms. Ortiz acknowledged the other issues related to the conditional use permit (CUP).
Ms. Bettman determined from City Attorney Klein that the Attorney General had not yet provided advice on
the UO’s ability to proceed with site excavation without a building permit. Ms. Bettman concluded that even
if the council ramped up the decision date, the UO might not be able to start the project when it wanted.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Bettman stated that it was the City’s right and authority to negotiate for a vacation of the magnitude
involved in the neighborhood in question, where, she maintained, so many vacations had been granted that
traffic connectivity and circulation, including bicycle and pedestrian traffic, was an issue. She reminded the
council that the single criterion governing the application was whether the vacations benefited the public, not
whether the arena benefited the public. For that reason, she had looked for ways for the UO and City to work
collaboratively to make the alley vacation in the public’s interest, as opposed to the City realizing only a
minimum amount of money. She favored a later decision date, and questioned how the needed collaboration to
create the public benefit to justify the vacation could happen in such a short time frame.
City Manager Ruiz indicated staff could return to the council by August 13 with a recommendation based on a
completed process, including any needed collaboration and negotiations.
Ms. Bettman questioned whether the City Manager could have all the details worked out by the August 13
date. She said that date did not give the council the chance to give the manager direction on possible
conditions, such as a land exchange to promote north-south connectivity and more definition regarding the
UO’s commitment to pedestrian access. City Manager Ruiz said staff could return with findings in regard to
the alley vacation and discuss other potential conditions with the UO.
Mr. Zelenka opposed the motion. He said that the decision date for the council did not impact the UO schedule
“one bit.” He said the UO’s desire to commence work on September 30 was dependent on the Attorney
General’s decision, and he believed a September 8 council decision could still accommodate that start date. He
said the UO needed to complete the CUP process, which could not conclude until October. He also maintained
that the motion “breaks faith” with the neighbors with no real need on the part of the UO. He had asked
specifically that the alley vacation coincide with the CUP process and he thought the UO had agreed to that
when the public hearing was scheduled. He believed a false sense of urgency was being created by the UO.
Mr. Zelenka thought the council needed to be thoughtful and retain the existing date.
Mr. Clark said he believed from watching the faces of the UO officials present during the last discussion that
they thought the later date would have a detrimental impact on their planning. He determined from City
Manager Ruiz that staff believed it could provide the information needed by the council in time for an August
13 decision date.
Mr. Clark indicated support for the motion because he wanted to move forward expeditiously.
Ms. Taylor did not support the motion because she thought the council needed time to negotiate an arrange-
ment that was in the public’s interest. She did not think the manager could demonstrate in such a short time
that this was the case. She thought if the vacation was shown to be in the public interest six councilors would
be willing to support an emergency clause. She said collaboration “cut two ways.”
Mayor Piercy believed the arena would be built and she had an interest in keeping the UO on schedule. She
said the council was told on July 21 that the emergency clause required the support of a majority of councilors,
but now the council had learned that including such a clause required six votes, which she believed made a
difference to the conversation. She hoped the UO and City could work in collaboration as it had just done in
regard to the recent Olympic Trials and she looked to the UO to work with the neighbors to resolve the issues
of concern to them.
Ms. Ortiz said she was going out on a limb somewhat with her motion, but hoped the UO heard the message
about collaboration and was receptive to the City when it approached the UO with issues around parking
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
control, the Department of Public Safety, and scholarships for underserved populations.
The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Zelenka voting no.
A. WORK SESSION:
Joint Meeting with River Road Park and Recreation District
Acting Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Renee Grube introduced the item, welcoming the
staff and board members of the River Road Park and Recreation District to the first joint meeting of the board
and council since the district was formed in 1955. She said the City had a collaborative partnership with the
district since its inception. The City and district had a formal Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) relationship
for 20 years that provided City funding to the district. The IGA was intended to facilitate the use of district
facilities by district residents who annexed into the City, and was intended to be a short-term means of
ensuring consistent service delivery while the property inside the district annexed to the City. She acknowl-
edged that such annexation was unlikely to occur in the near-term.
Ms. Grube noted the services provided by the district to district residents, including city residents. She said
that no other residents had access to both district and City recreational services. She said the district’s
residents had been willing to pay a fairly high tax rate to maintain district services, but in spite of that the
district was facing a long-term structural deficit due to rising expenses. The district was drawing down on its
reserves and now was facing the potential of service reductions. City and district staff had met several times
over the past year and it was clear that the City’s $100,000 contribution was not a long-term solution for
either body. The City wished to work with the district to identify a sustainable solution to ensure that services
were available at Emerald Park into the future.
River Road Park and Recreation District Assistant Superintendent Dale Weigandt introduced district board
members Betty Donaldson, Walt Haniuk, Wayne Helikson, Jim Wienecke, and District Superintendent Jim
Lockard. Mr. Weigandt expressed pride in the district and its facilities and provided a brief overview of
district facilities. He noted the many recreational activities and social services offered through the community
center located at Emerald Park. Mr. Weigandt spoke of the balance the district had to maintain between the
taxes it assessed to in-district residents and fees for services.
Mr. Weigandt commended the district’s partnership with the City of Eugene and the funding from Eugene that
helped make it possible. He could not see ending the partnership. He spoke of the impact of the recent
economic downtown on district services and facilities, emphasizing the additional patron visits and demand on
district services that were created as a result of more people staying at home.
Mr. Weigandt invited council members to contact him for a tour of the district’s facilities. He expressed hope
for a positive solution to continue district operations.
Mr. Lockard observed that he joined the district in 1972 at a time of financial crisis, and would retire in 2010
leaving another crisis unless the district and City could reach an agreement. He reported that the district had
finished the last fiscal year with a much reduced contingency fund and would face a similar situation next year.
He contended the incremental annexation policies of the City of Eugene had caused many of the district’s
financial problems because annexation removed property from the district’s tax rolls, resulting in the highest
tax rate for any park district in Oregon, which was $3.0559 cents per $1,000.
Mr. Lockard discussed the negative impact on district revenues that arose because of the end of the 20-year
agreement between Eugene and the district. He noted the five options presented to the council and reviewed
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
the elements of Option 1, which was reflected in the staff-prepared motion included in the meeting materials,
and suggested it was not enough in itself to avoid reductions in district operations. He believed the required
reductions would take the life blood out of the district given the choices that would be left to the board of
directors. He preferred the options that restored or increased funding and created a window for other decisions
that needed to be made.
Mr. Lockard acknowledged the political unpopularity of the option of annexation of the area encompassed by
the district, but said he believed that was the appropriate long-term approach.
Mr. Helikson discussed the board’s understanding that the funding provided through the IGA between Eugene
and the district was in lieu of tax payments on property annexed to the City of Eugene. The formula
established at the time worked for 20 years. When year 21 was reached, City staff decided that what had
worked for 20 years did not work anymore, and rather than negotiate a new amount, told the district to “take it
or leave it.” That placed the district in a terrible position. He could not understand why the City would
attempt to destroy the finest park in the area because he believed that was the result of its approach.
Mr. Helikson said the cause of the district’s funding problem was the City’s incremental annexation program,
which had devastated the district’s tax base. The City created the problem, and it was the district’s position
that the City should take care of the problem. He suggested that the lack of City attention to the issue was a
strategy on the part of “someone, somewhere,” to eliminate the district. He said the district was not seeking to
get rich and only sought the amount that allowed it to maintain its existing programs. He thought that was in
the best interest of both the district and City. If the district did not receive the money, it would reduce
maintenance and services and City residents would pay higher fees to use district facilities. Mr. Helikson said
if the City ever assumed responsibility for the district, it was in the City’s interest to ensure the district was
well-run and well-cared for.
Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to district representatives for the presentation and noted her familiarity
with the district through her role as the area’s representative in the House. She then left the meeting for a
personal obligation. Mr. Pryor assumed the chair. Mr. Zelenka also left the meeting for a personal obligation
and indicated he would view the portion of the meeting he was obliged to miss at a later date.
Mr. Clark thanked the district’s board and staff. He spoke of his own use of recreational facilities as a youth
and stressed their importance to residents, particularly families. He said that funding was a challenge in the
current environment faced by both the district and the City, which also was in the position of relying on its
reserves. The City faced escalating costs and any changes in its revenue stream would have a dramatic effect.
He advocated for creative thinking in this instance.
Mr. Clark noted that he had received an e-mail from River Road resident Rob Handy that indicated his belief
that 55 percent of district patrons were from the Santa Clara area. He asked if the district had considered
attempting to incorporate Santa Clara residents in the district and if those residents were charged non-resident
fees. Mr. Lockard confirmed that non-residents were charged an extra fee, but it was about the same as the
City’s fees for residents because Santa Clara residents had a choice. He said that the district could not offer a
broad recreational program without those residents because of the balance between fees and revenues.
Mr. Weigandt said the district had explored expanding into the Santa Clara area but the boundary commission
had not supported the proposal. Mr. Clark asked how the elimination of the boundary commission affected
that issue. Mr. Lockard pointed out that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan)
stipulated that the City was the logical provider of such services, although the district disagreed with that. Mr.
Clark thought the Metro Plan, more than annexation policy, was the driver of the challenge facing the City and
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 4
Work Session
district.
Ms. Ortiz thanked the representatives of the district. She commended Emerald Park and noted her own
family’s use of its facilities. She concurred with Mr. Helkison’s remarks and said the City and district needed
to decide where they were heading and what the end product was. She said the City was already struggling to
provide recreation and parks services for residents within its tax base. She invited more input into an ultimate
solution. She was seeking an equitable solution because not all parts of the community received the same
services, depending on their location. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the meeting was the beginning of a longer
conversation and hoped that no one came to that discussion with a predisposition of where the discussion
would go.
Ms. Solomon thought Mr. Helikson’s remarks “cut to the chase” as she believed annexation would solve many
of the problems facing the City and district. She was not happy with the City’s current annexation policies
because she believed they needed to be more aggressive. However, she was unsure that the City could afford
to provide the programs being offered by the district. She thought the $100,000 investment the City made was
a good value given that the district was serving a large portion of the community. She was somewhat torn as
how to proceed and was unclear as to how the discussion now differed from the discussion that led to the IGA.
Mr. Helikson said that the IGA was put into place because the Boundary Commission wanted some arrange-
ment between the two parties before it started approving annexations. He did not think anything had changed,
and if the City had continued to honor the IGA, the meeting would not have happened. He thought the IGA
had worked out well until the City unilaterally decided the amount was $100,000. He reminded the council of
the circumstances in regard to sewers that existed at the time, leading to the requirement for any development
to annex.
Mr. Haniuk pointed out the IGA was a collaborative agreement but the City had been the party that initiated it
because of what was expected to happen in regard to annexation over the next 20 years. Now people were
only annexing for the purpose of development. The district had many areas that were subsequently annexed
into Eugene, eliminating revenue to the district.
In regard to the concept that this was the beginning of a longer conversation, Mr. Haniuk pointed out that the
district could not wait for much longer before it would have to reduce services.
Ms. Solomon said that if the City were to absorb the district in the future, she thought it would be better to
absorb a healthy district rather than allowing the district to “die slowly on the vine” and then inherit something
that required a huge infusion of cash. Mr. Helikson did not think the City could operate the district as frugally
as it was operated now because the two entities did not have the same cost basis.
Speaking to the implication in the meeting materials that the district’s services were so good they would have
to be brought down to the City’s level, Mr. Helikson said that the district and City could arrange to make the
park accessible to all residents with the appropriate funding. He did not think there was a reason to equalize
services to make them all equally bad.
Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Helikson about equalizing services by making them equally bad.
Ms. Taylor noted her long-held belief that the City’s piecemeal annexation policy was mistaken. She said it
appeared to her that the district was offering services at a level the City used to maintain. She recalled that the
council had made reductions to the City’s recreation programs during the Ballot Measure 47/50 process that
she continued to regret. While she did not want to bring services down, she questioned if the City could
continue to afford to help fund the district’s programs. She acknowledged a need to consider the original IGA
as well. Ms. Taylor was unsure of her final position on the subject.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 5
Work Session
Mr. Helikson thought the amount determined through the IGA had been fair and questioned why it was no
longer considered fair. He did not think the City was supporting district programs; rather, it was paying the
district a small amount of money for the taxes it had taken away through incremental annexation. He said that
$200,000 meant a lot more to the district than it did to Eugene. Ms. Taylor did not disagree.
Ms. Bettman said that when properties in the district were annexed to Eugene, residents were paying for a
broad range of services, and she maintained that district residents received services from the City at a reduced
rate because they were not paying City taxes. She thought it important to look at the big picture. Ms.
Bettman said the district was providing excellent services but needed a significant infusion of cash to do so.
She questioned whether the City could provide the same services for the same amount of money. She also
wanted to know what role the County played given that district residents were also County residents. Mr.
Helikson said that the district had not approached the County. He said the district was supporting its own
programs, and the City was paying the district for what it had taken away, and at what he considered a very
low level.
Mr. Lockard did not see how the County could help the district given its current financial situation.
Central Services Director Jim Carlson said that the IGA was signed with the belief that annexation would
occur over a 20-year period, and it was clear now that was not going to happen. There was no reason for a
resident to choose annexation because they were getting the services they wanted without annexation. He
pointed out that one major factor that had changed since the initial IGA was the passage of Ballot Measure
47/50, which had substantially impacted the annual increase in property taxes to the district. Those measures
created a “sea change” in the way that all local governments were funded, including the City, which suffered
from the same structural imbalance facing the district. Part of that was due to annexation, but much was due
to Ballot Measures 47/50. Mr. Lockard pointed out that the City continued to receive the three percent
increase in property taxes, which the district did not.
Mr. Pryor said that instead of looking at managing a transition, the council was looking at the potential that
the annexation situation in River Road could continue indefinitely. He suggested the community needed to
consider at some point whether that was financially feasible given escalating costs. He asked if district
representatives could envision the district being in place in 20 years, or would the question of financial
feasibility prevent that. He believed staff had followed the council’s direction in regard to the funds given the
district but the council could revise that decision, and he was supportive of continued funding; the question
was what amount, and for how long. Mr. Pryor suggested that required a joint discussion. He supported
continuing the funding while that discussion occurred in the amount of $100,000. He invited input on the
question of the length of time funding would be provided.
Mr. Helikson agreed a long-term discussion was necessary, but the board would appreciate the larger
contribution with the commitment to work with the City on a long-term arrangement.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to follow the cur-
rent direction for a one-time payment of $100,000 to the district in the FY09 Budget and to
develop a work plan and timeline to explore a variety of partnership options between the dis-
trict and the City that identifies a long-term sustainable strategy for the viable operation of the
district until annexation occurs.
Mr. Clark concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He said if the City ever acquired the district, it was
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 6
Work Session
important it be in the best possible shape. He recognized the district’s importance to the residents he
represented in Santa Clara. He thought it would be difficult for the City to duplicate the level of service now
provided for the amount expended. Mr. Clark appreciated the good job the district did and said the issues for
him came down to equity and priorities. He thought it logical the district would want to address the fact that
many Santa Clara residents used the facility but did not live in the district, but acknowledged the political
difficulty that might present. He thought there was an equity issue involved. He suggested the demise of the
Boundary Commission might present new opportunities in that regard.
Mr. Helikson believed it would be self-defeating to annex Santa Clara if the City continued its piecemeal
annexation program; the problem would last “forever.” Mr. Clark said that the City needed to consider both
the revenue side of the picture as well as the increase in demand experienced by the district in regard to
services provided to Santa Clara. The City was not in the position to provide the same excellent service to its
residents as the district provided, and there was an equity issue in that regard as well as a priority issue that he
continued to struggle with.
Mr. Helikson indicated the district would be willing to waive out-of-district fees for City residents if an
equitable arrangement with the City could be reached.
Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the change in funding, Mr. Carlson attributed it to the City’s
financial situation at the time. He said the City was cutting its recreation programs, and the question then
became how the City could cut its own programs without reducing its contribution to the park district. He
estimated the cost of restoring the amount at about $140,000. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms.
Ortiz about the City’s budget, Mr. Carlson said the City used reserves to balance the budget in the last two
years, and proposed to do so again this year. That eliminated the City’s Reserve for Revenue Shortfall going
into fiscal year 2010. He said that restoring the contract would require the City to make service reductions or
find revenue increases.
Ms. Ortiz wished the City could write the district a check to make it whole and continue its services. Speaking
to the issue of the County, she pointed out that the County had not always been in crisis and given that the
district’s constituents were largely County residents, she wondered why the board had not held the County’s
“feet to the fire” to a greater degree. Mr. Helikson said the district never seemed to be in crisis when the
County had money.
Ms. Bettman noted the County’s lack of a systems development charge for parks.
Ms. Ortiz said that life was full of inequities, and she frequently saw people that had access to much more than
other people, which was her reason for being on the council. She was not asking the district to lower its
standards; she thought there could be a middle ground in that regard.
Ms. Ortiz suggested a parks district for the entire community might be an appropriate solution. Mr. Weigandt
noted the precedent that existed in Springfield in regard to the Willamalane Parks and District. He emphasized
that the district was under scrutiny by its residents and that was one of the reasons its programs were so good.
He hoped the district was not penalized because of its quality programming.
Speaking to the issue of the County funding situation, Mr. Carlson pointed out that the residents of the district
and the City were all County residents. He recalled that the County was also in a fiscal crisis in 1983, which
was when it got out of the business of providing urban parks altogether. He suggested there would be no
equity in the County funding parks services to River Road residents but to no other County residents.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 7
Work Session
Ms. Bettman said the City had traditionally taken responsibility for development in the urban transition area,
but that might not happen in the future; simply because the County was not historically involved did not mean
it would not be involved in the future. She pointed out that systems development charges, which were intended
for new infrastructure, also had a reimbursable component. The County could have availed itself of funding
sources but it had chosen not to, and she thought the County deserved to be pressured as much as the City.
Speaking to the suggestion of a parks district, Ms. Bettman said that was not as simple as it seemed. She said
that it resulted in redundancy of staff and operations and had the effect of raising taxes and creating
compression. She supported the motion.
Mr. Clark supported the motion and indicated he was seeking a long-term, creative solution and thought the
motion gave the two parties time to achieve that. He suggested the district consider expanding its boundaries
to account for residents who were enjoying its services but were not district residents. Until that occurred, he
was challenged by the concept of the City stepping in to fill the funding void on a permanent basis.
Responding to a question from Mr. Helikson, Mr. Pryor indicated the City could provide the district with
information about its rate per thousand for the cost of parks.
Mr. Pryor supported the motion as the beginning of the needed conversation.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Mr. Pryor adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 8
Work Session
ATTACHMENT B
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
July 28, 2008
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Jennifer
Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum.
Susan M. Truax
said although she had patronized downtown businesses for many years, was involved as a volunteer
with the Eugene Celebration, and spent considerable time downtown, when she read the recent article in The
Register-Guard about the experience of Betty Snowden, she realized she did not know what was going on downtown.
She called the treatment of Ms. Snowden unacceptable. She wanted to participate in a solution and was ready to act,
including sitting down in front of Ms. Snowden’s business to demonstrate support. She asked the council to give her
direction.
Kathy Saranpa
, representing the Crest Drive Community Advisory Group, noted the council’s passage of a motion
calling for the Planning Commission to investigate the potential of reclassifying the street and said she had since
learned from City Manager Jon Ruiz and Public Works Director Kurt Corey that the council could take that action
without input from the commission. She asked the council to take that action.
Jim Torrey
, 3393 Arlington Avenue, spoke in support of the exclusion ordinance as a means to respond to the racial
harassment experienced by resident Betty Snowden and others. He thanked councilors Ortiz and Clark for raising the
issue. He acknowledged that the proposed ordinance might not be perfect but suggested to do anything less was not
acceptable. He believed that the offense of failure to appear was not an acceptable approach. He noted the recent
successful Olympic Trials and said the volunteer committee, which he had chaired, had worked long and hard to
determine how each visitor to Eugene felt welcome. He asked the council to consider the impact the article about Ms.
Snowden’s experiences in The Register-Guard would have had on visitors had it appeared during the event. He did
not think that the City could fail to deal with the situation. He called on the council to take responsibility and deal
with the issue or it would send a message he did not believe the citizens supported. He said that “Justice delayed was
justice denied.”
Zach Vishanoff
, a resident living on Patterson Street, questioned what prompted the council to change the closing
date for public comment for the University of Oregon’s arena project. He asked “what’s the rush” and why the
University could not wait until September. He raised the issue of a new dormitory proposed to be built one block
south of the existing arena, which would impact housing. He believed that too many development projects were
going forward at the same time. Mr. Vishanoff also noted a proposal to build a new laboratory in the Riverfront
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 1
Meeting
Research Park and suggested that would have an impact on the arena because the University intended to use the
parking there for the arena. He invited the council to explain to him why it had changed its mind.
Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. In regard to the downtown issue raised by Mr. Torrey, she said that she had
sent a message to the City’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the organization Clergy and Laity Concerned
(CALC) about the potential of those entities doing public education about how unacceptable such behavior was in
Eugene. She had suggested the HRC and CALC could lead in that regard given their past roles. She had received a
good response to her inquiries and was hopeful about future action. Mayor Piercy thought that prolonged action
would be necessary to create change. She said she was willing to be part of the community that stood up for Ms.
Snowden.
Councilor Taylor likened the downtown exclusion ordinance to the county’s response to the events of September 11,
2001, which resulted in a war in Iraq rather than a solution to the actual problem. She thought the council needed to
look for what was causing the problem and who was causing the problem rather than punishing large groups of
people. She was also interested in the concerns shared by the residents of the Crest-Storey area. Councilor Taylor
asked if the council could approve a street designation without input from the Planning Commission.
City Manager Jon Ruiz referred Councilor Taylor’s question to City Attorney Glenn Klein. He recalled that another
element of the discussion was a funding source for the improvements being contemplated; the neighborhood was not
interested in having the streets designated as collectors, which would make the streets eligible for the use of systems
development charges (SDCs). Staff continued to examine that issue.
City Attorney Klein said that the street designation involved a plan amendment, which must first be processed by the
City’s Planning Commission. City Manager Ruiz indicated he told the neighbors no Planning Commission process
was needed in error. Responding to a follow-up question from Councilor Taylor, City Manager Ruiz said he would
find out when the Planning Commission would consider the matter. Councilor Taylor hoped the process could
commence soon, and noted the long process the neighbors had already gone through.
Councilor Clark expressed appreciation to those who testified and, speaking to the comments of Councilor Taylor,
said he worked downtown and the problems downtown were clear to him and others who worked downtown, and the
proposed exclusion ordinance was a clear and specific attempt to respond to those problems. He invited further
debate on the issue. He thanked the mayor for her communication with the HRC and said the commission, of which
he was a member, had worked on the issue quite a while and he expected there was more work to come. He
welcomed any citizens’ input and assistance. He invited Ms. Truax to contact him directly.
Councilor Bettman suggested the City could expedite the Planning Commission process to make up for some of the
inconvenience suffered by the Crest-Storey area residents.
Councilor Bettman endorsed Ms. Truax’s idea and expressed appreciation to her for it and agreed that people could
take turns sitting in front of the store to discourage bad behavior. She volunteered to sign up for a shift and said she
would encourage others to do so as well. She encouraged Ms. Truax to contact the council.
Councilor Ortiz thanked those who testified and said she would be interested in a quick turnaround on Councilor
Taylor’s questions because she anticipated she would be working with a group of citizens on a similar issue in regard
to the Elmira-Maple project.
Councilor Ortiz invited Mr. Vishanoff to contact her for more information about the council’s decision in regard to
the closing date for comment for the vacations requested by the University.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 2
Meeting
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
April 23, 2008, Work Session
May 21, 2008, Work Session
May 27, 2008, City Council Meeting
June 4, 2008, Work Session
B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda
C. Appointment to Toxics Board
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the Consent Calendar.
Councilor Clark pulled Item C.
Councilor Bettman noted that she had e-mailed changes to the minutes, which Mayor Piercy deemed approved
without objection.
Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar, excepting Item C, passed unanimously, 8:0.
Speaking to Item C, Councilor Clark asked that the item be postponed because he did not receive a copy of the
recommended nominee’s application. Management Analyst Glen Potter of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services
indicated that could be done.
Councilor Bettman determined from Mr. Potter that the Toxics Board did not meet again until September 4, 2008,
leaving the council time to act.
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to withdraw Item C from the Consent Cal-
endar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
3. ACTION:
Resolution 4953 Calling a City Election on November 4, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Le-
gal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Authorizing the Issuance of a Maximum of $81.1 or $35.9
Million of General Obligation Bonds to Fund Street Preservation Projects
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4953 Calling a City
Election on November 4, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of
Eugene a Measure Authorizing the Issuance of a Maximum of $35.9 Million of General Obligation
Bonds to Fund Street Preservation Projects as outlined in Revised Attachment D.
Councilor Clark recommended the council delay any election until May 2009.
Councilor Poling supported the delay mentioned by Councilor Clark and also supported a ten-year package rather
than five-year package because a five-year package did not address the need. In addition, he did not think the council
could build the trust that would allow a five-year package to be renewed within the next five years, as evidenced by
the fate of past proposals.
Councilor Solomon noted a typographical error in Section F of the revised resolution reflected in Attachment D,
which referred to a ten-year, rather than five-year, measure. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge agreed
that was an error.
Councilor Solomon agreed with Councilor Poling about the extent of the problem and said that a ten-year bond did
not get the City where it wanted to be. However, since the council’s last discussion she had heard information that
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 3
Meeting
suggested to her that the five-year bond would have more support and she was willing to support that. She hoped it
had unanimous council support.
Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation to the staff for its answers to her questions. She said she supported the
motion and would vote for the bond as well as campaign for it. She thought that would be a key piece in passing a
measure. Councilor Bettman pointed out the council had few options to choose from in solving the problem.
However, she believed that the council had the momentum to get the measure passed and discerned majority support
on the council, if not a super majority, for the resolution. She observed that the task force that recommended the
proposal to the council included those who might have otherwise been against the measure.
Ms. Cutsogeorge noted some changes made to Section 4 of Attachment D reflecting the findings and stating that bond
would not be used for new capacity and would be audited by an outside auditor.
Councilor Pryor made a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilor Bettman, to change Section F
of Attachment D by changing the word “ten” to “five.”
Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Ruiz noted the task force’s unanimous support for the
five-year measure and the outside auditor. He indicated his own support for the five-year measure as a means to start
down the road of addressing the larger problem. He thought the Public Works Department could make a significant
impact on the maintenance backlog over five years and could demonstrate it could steward and manage those dollars
before the council asked the community to support a longer-term solution. He believed the council’s unanimous
support would send a strong and positive message to the community.
At the request of Mayor Piercy, City Manager Ruiz reviewed the list of task force members, which included citizens
Dave Hauser, Ron Tyree, Janet Calvert, Kurt Corey, Rich Gaston, John Kirk, Bob Kline, Marvin Revoal, Greg
Rikhoff, Romange Sogage, and Rob Zako. He believed the task force represented a wide variety of viewpoints in the
community and reiterated that its recommendation had been unanimous and was represented in the resolution before
the council.
Councilor Pryor said he was facing the issue of what he supported and what he could live with. He recalled the
council transportation funding subcommittee process, where the members had to compromise and sought a middle
ground. He said the council needed to reestablish the community’s faith and trust in it, and if the council could use
the five years appropriately, aggressively, and effectively, he thought that could occur. He wanted to see something
happen right away and hoped the council could support the resolution and do what it said it would do. He said five
years was not his first choice but he thought it was the choice that would work.
Councilor Ortiz commended City Manager Ruiz for securing the consultant he had for the community survey because
of the understandable information that he presented. She hoped the council could support the resolution and thought
the five-year approach was fiscally conservative.
Councilor Zelenka thought the council needed to be pragmatic. He said the problem facing the council was huge and
there were no perfect solutions. He said supporting the bond levy was a compromise for him because of the lack of
nexus between households and street use. He also commended the manager for the earlier presentation. He said the
problem was not new and it was a result of inaction on the council’s part. He said if the council could pass a five-
year bond it should go for it. He liked the idea of the external auditor and thought the distribution of street
improvement projects gave everyone in the community something. He noted a letter to the editor regarding the
current gas tax and asked the manager to confirm the entire gas tax was used to maintain the road system, which City
Manager Ruiz did. Councilor Zelenka did not think there was value in waiting.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 4
Meeting
Councilor Taylor supported the motion although she had previously favored the ten-year measure and heard from
constituents who also supported it. However, given what she heard from the survey results, she supported the motion
and liked the audit that had been included.
Councilor Clark was tired of the status of City roads but thought the trust issue was based on factors the council had
to address. He had hoped the council would take action over the past year to do so, but he did not think that
occurred. He was concerned that that the solution to the problem included a bond, and if it failed, it would be more
difficult to pass a future bond. He thought it would be easier to pass a larger measure in May 2009 and thought the
larger measure would do more to fix the problem. He did not think he could support the five-year measure but
indicated he would not campaign against such a measure.
Councilor Poling agreed with Councilor Clark. He did not support the motion but would not actively campaign
against it. He said that the consultant indicated a ten-year measure would not pass but a five-year measure would
pass. He did not think a five-year measure would pass either. He asked what percentage of the projects contem-
plated in the bond were south of the Willamette River. Mr. Corey said that the five-year list included a balance of
projects across the city with high visibility and included more street reconstruction. He did not think the list of
projects heavily balanced one way or another, pointing out that the roads south of the river were older and in greater
disrepair than roads north of the river.
Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; Councilors Poling and Clark voting no.
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to authorize the expenditure of $25,000
from the General Fund Contingency account to produce an information-neutral tabloid to be sent to
all households in the city.
Councilor Bettman asked if the City’s two ballot measures could be discussed in one tabloid to reduce expense. She
believed it was past tradition to produce one such publication. City Attorney Klein did not believe there was a legal
issue precluding that approach. City Manager Ruiz did not believe passage of the motion precluded the production
of a single tabloid. Councilor Zelenka also wanted to combine the two issues in one tabloid to be as economical as
possible. City Manager Ruiz said he would discuss the issue with staff.
Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy recognized Councilor Bettman for a motion on an unrelated matter.
Councilor Bettman distributed copies of the resolution passed by the council in regard to the police auditor, and
indicated she would offer a motion to repeal the previous ballot title. She thanked City Manager Ruiz and City
Attorney Klein for their assistance in developing the new ballot title.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to repeal Resolution No. 4949, a resolu-
tion calling a City election.
Responding to a question from Councilor Clark, City Attorney Klein said that the council could not change the
certified ballot title unless someone filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court; the motion would allow him to prepare a new
ballot title in keeping with Councilor Bettman’s wishes. Councilor Clark asked if a vote in favor of the motion would
allow for a council work session to review the new title. City Attorney Klein said no; he would have to certify the
ballot title by August 4, and invited council input prior to that time via e-mail.
Responding to a question from City Attorney Klein, City Recorder Mary Feldman reviewed the process timeline.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 5
Meeting
Councilor Clark asked how the resolution would affect City Attorney Klein’s judgment on the ballot title. City
Attorney Klein suggested that drafting a ballot title was an art rather than a science, and one could have 100
reasonable ballot titles for one measure. He thought his title was reasonable, and that the title Councilor Bettman
included in her e-mail was appropriate to include in a title, although perhaps not absolutely necessary. He reiterated
his invitation for additional input. He said the title must be consistent with State law, and that was his goal.
Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Clark voting no.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution No. 4954, which shall
consist of the same title and provisions as were in Resolution No. 4949.
Roll call vote; the motion passed 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Clark voting no.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to direct legal
counsel to adopt a ballot title, caption, question, and summary generally consistent with the language
provided in her e-mail dated July 28, 2008.
Councilor Clark said that the e-mail contained language that concerned him. He determined from City Attorney
Klein that he would interpret the motion as the council’s indication of what it would like the ballot title to be.
Councilor Clark thought the language provided by Councilor Bettman offered greater clarity in some regards, but he
thought it less clear in regard to the duties of the auditor. He had hoped for more specificity with the intent reflected
in the title, but was unclear as to how to accomplish that. He indicated he would have to vote in opposition to the
motion because the time for discussion was not adequate.
Councilor Zelenka suggested the text in Councilor Bettman’s e-mail was in keeping with the council’s last conversa-
tion on the topic.
Councilor Pryor was willing to allow the attorney to do more work on the ballot title but was not willing to support
the motion because other councilors might also want to provide input. He did not want the motion to reflect the
“officially voted on version.”
Councilor Bettman said that she took to heart the fact that the council could not tell the attorney what to write, but a
majority of councilors could express their opinion that they believed her suggestion was in keeping with the resolution
and was clear and neutral. She pointed out that after a period of time, any one could challenge the title in Circuit
Court.
Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka
voting yes; councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor, and Clark voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in
support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4.
4. ACTION:
Approval of Motions Related to Production of a Voters’ Pamphlet for the November 4, 2008, Election
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to publish and
distribute a local voters’ pamphlet for the election scheduled for November 4, 2008, and to author-
ize the expenditure of funds from the General Fund Contingency account that are required to pro-
duce the voter’s pamphlet. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously.
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint councilors Bettman, Zelenka,
and Ortiz to the Voter’s Pamphlet Proponent Committee for the Police Auditor Charter Amendment.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 6
Meeting
Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint Councilors Pyror, Solomon, and
Taylor to the Voter’s Pamphlet Proponent Committee, on the general obligation bond measure. Roll
call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
4. ACTION:
An Ordinance Concerning Prohibition of Extreme Fighting; Repealing Section 4.740 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill
4984, an ordinance concerning prohibition of extreme fighting. Roll call vote; the motion passed
unanimously, 8:0.
5. ACTION:
An Ordinance Denying Proposal to Amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) to Revise the Goal 5 Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory and Redes-
ignate from “Agriculture” to “Sand & Gravel”; and Providing an
Effective Date
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill
4971, an ordinance denying the proposal to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Gen-
eral Plan.
Councilor Clark opposed the motion. He had not changed his mind about the sufficiency of the resource contained on
the property in question as demonstrated by the applicant’s experts, who he thought made a compelling case in that
regard. He said the council had not had a discussion of the findings prepared by staff, and he was not comfortable
accepting those findings without more discussion of some of the specifics.
Councilor Solomon said that what the council proposed to do to Eugene Sand and Gravel was shameful. She said the
firm was a productive company that had contributed family wage jobs and supported its employees in their volunteer
efforts. She thought the action contemplated was contrary to the City’s stated goal of sustainability. She pointed out
the wear and tear on the roads that would result in the community needing to import its gravel from other communi-
ties. She did not know how Lane County could get to “yes” on the application but Eugene could not. She said the
council was supposed to be helping local companies grow. Both the public and private sectors needed gravel and the
company in question could provide it at a reasonable price in the community’s backyard.
Councilor Poling recalled that he also supported the applicant in regard to the question of the sufficiency of resources
to be found on the property. He believed the applicant had overwhelmingly proved that.
Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to change the findings in regard to noise
(page 157) to read “We find that potential noise conflicts from the proposed mining of the expansion
area can be minimized as required by Goal 5.”
Councilor Poling believed the applicant had addressed the issue of noise mitigation and he disagreed with the staff
findings. He could not understand the decision in regard to the applicant’s proposed mitigation.
City Attorney Emily Jerome noted that the issue was mentioned throughout the findings as the findings built upon one
another. She suggested that instead, Councilor Poling direct staff to return with alternative findings that found that
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 7
Meeting
the noise from the site could be mitigated. Councilors Poling and Solomon accepted that as a friendly amendment to
the motion on the floor.
Councilor Pryor indicated his opposition to the motion and his support for Councilor Poling’s motion.
Councilor Bettman would not support the motion as change would reverberate throughout the findings. She thanked
the staff for its work in addressing the voluminous testimony and council discussion.
Councilor Bettman said the City came to a different conclusion than the Lane Board of County Commissioners
because of the operation’s impact on City residents. She said that past planning had allowed for residential
development up to the buffer of the property but the company had not objected. She agreed it was a good location
for gravel mining, but not for the residents living so near. That fact created many conflicts. She asserted that other
conflicts were not mentioned because the applicant refused to do a traffic impact analysis.
In regard to noise, Councilor Bettman said that a mining operation would be operating within 150 feet of people’s
houses, creating noise, dust, and other impacts. She maintained that the decision would not put the company out of
business as it had additional resources.
In regard to the sufficiency of the resource, Councilor Bettman said the issue was whether it was adequate to justify
the elimination of farm land and the impact on the neighbors.
Councilor Clark supported Councilor Poling’s motion. While he acknowledged the applicant’s interest in completing
the process, after the loss of Hynix and its jobs he did not want to see the council act too quickly without considering
all the issues thoroughly. He thought the council should take the time to get each element of the decision right.
Councilor Solomon thought it was a sad day when the City punished a company for something it had allowed. She
pointed out that the home buyers in this case were not victims as they had bought their property with knowledge of
the mining operation. She said that anyone who toured the site would see the site was quite large and production was
moving away from the home sites back onto the deeper part of the property.
Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Solomon, Poling,
Pryor, and Clark voting yes, and councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka voting no,
Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to Delta Sand and Gravel for all the jobs it provided and for the materials it
provided to the community, but she agreed with the staff.
Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4.
Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Ze-
lenka voting yes, and councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor, and Clark voting yes; Mayor Piercy cast a
vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4.
6. ACTION:
An Ordinance Concerning Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Text; Amending the Willa-
kenzie Area Plan Text; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River
Greenway; Adopting Severability and Saving Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date (I-5 Willamette
Bridge Project, Eugene Files MA 07-03, RA 08-01; Springfield file LRP2007-00010; Lane County file
PA08-5230);
and
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 8
Meeting
An Ordinance Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text in the Willamette Greenway Section; Adopt-
ing an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; and Adopting a Sever-
ability Clause
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill
4981, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
text.
City Attorney Jerome reported that staff had learned of an ex parte contact that occurred in regard to the item, which
had been noticed to the public for the purpose of rebuttal.
Mayor Piercy noted her ex parte contact that occurred at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting on July
10, 2008, during which a presentation on the bridge project was made by staff of the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT). She summarized what was presented by ODOT and said that citizens were given an
opportunity to view the broadcast. Councilor Zelenka, who was also at the MPC meeting, declared the same ex parte
contact.
Mayor Piercy determined there was no one present who wished to rebut the information provided by ODOT.
Councilor Bettman averred that while technically the council was being asked to approve fill inside the greenway, it
was also being asked to approve the project as described in terms of scope, cost, and capacity. While she acknowl-
edged there were no local funds involved, the council was “enabling” the State and federal government in construct-
ing a bridge she maintained was larger and more expensive than would be needed for many years and which might
never be used to full capacity because that capacity was predicated on widening I-5, which might not occur given the
expense and lack of funding sources. The funding for the bridge, while not local, was still taxpayer money, and
would be tied up in a bridge and not available for other projects on the State or federal system. She objected to that
as being inefficient and wasteful given the needs that existed. For that reason, she would oppose the motion.
Councilor Bettman recalled that Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken had indicated at the MPC meeting that he had an ex
parte contact with Representative Peter DeFazio about the potential of adding ramps serving Franklin Boulevard to
the bridge. The staff notes indicated that ramps could be accommodated, and she asked if there had been public
discussion about that. Heather O’Donnell, associate planner, said that because staff hadn’t actually reviewed a
design, she had been unable to respond to the question about ramps at the Joint Elected Officicals meeting because
there was nothing in the record in that regard. The applicant indicated they were only adjusting the existing ramps to
make sure the new alignment would work. She indicated there was a comment in the applicant’s materials in the
packet, which stated that it will be able to accommodate future ramps but that there’s no further information about
that. Councilor Bettman said that the addition of ramps represented a “huge change” in the scope of the project. She
asked if the council was “de facto” approving that by its approval of the motion. She questioned whether such ramps
would require additional piers and river crossings. Councilor Bettman maintained that the issue of such ramps was
“put to bed” during her first United Front trip, and expressed surprise that Mayor Leiken had been having high level
discussions about it when the community did not know about it and such ramps would change the assumptions
related to the bridge project. Ms. O’Donnell said that ODOT stated in its materials that the revision of the alignment
of the ramps to meet the new bridges would not prohibit additional ramps that would be part of a different, future
project. Councilor Bettman asked if that would cost additional money beyond that proposed.
Councilor Bettman asked for a legal opinion as to whether council approval of the amendment conveyed any
approval related to future ramps. City Attorney Jerome said no. She said the council was not being asked to approve
any particular design through its approval of the Goal 15 exception. Councilor Bettman asked who approved the
design. City Attorney Jerome did not know, noting that discussion of the bridge design was next on the agenda.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 9
Meeting
Councilor Bettman asked if the council could condition its decision on future council approval of the proposed design
to ensure they were not approving ramps, and that decision would have to be brought back to council. City Attorney
Jerome did not think so. She believed this was the council’s sole decision point. Councilor Bettman averred that the
council’s approval would mean tacit approval of the ramps desired by Mayor Leiken.
Ms. O’Donnell said that if the addition of new ramps required Metro Plan changes, the council would then have an
opportunity to weigh in on that decision. Councilor Bettman suggested that ODOT could argue that the council
already approved those ramps by adopting the resolution. City Attorney Jerome said no. The resolution did not
anticipate a particular design outside the greenway area exception to accommodate the bridge. Design is more
appropriately discussed under the next agenda item.
Councilor Zelenka said that when he asked ODOT staff at the MPC meeting if the design accommodated ramps at
Franklin, staff indicated it did not and also that the costs for such ramps were not included. He was concerned by
Councilor Bettman’s remarks, however, and wanted to modify the ordinance to state that reconstruction of roadway
approaches to the bridges involved only the existing ramps. City Attorney Jerome pointed out that the three entities
with jurisdiction over the matter—Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County—needed to agree on the text in the
ordinance. Springfield had already passed the same ordinance as the ordinance before the council; Lane County had
yet to take action.
Councilor Zelenka did not support on-ramps at Franklin Boulevard because of the impact it would have on the
neighborhood he represented. He maintained that Mayor Leiken’s suggestion was a “dumb way to do it” because
fixing the Glenwood intersection accomplished “almost the exact same thing” at half the price. He indicated his intent
to offer an amendment that would require Springfield to change the text it adopted.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add “existing”
before the word “ramps” to the line on page 13.
Councilor Bettman believed that the findings as well as the ordinance would need to be changed anywhere which
referred to ramps.
Ms. O’Donnell indicated she believed there needed to be clarification on the different ramps being discussed to avoid
confusion. It was stated as a clarification, any on- or off-ramps to Franklin are within the greenway therefore changes
to those would trigger a greenway permit and would thus trigger a Metro Plan amendment which would go before
council. So this would come before the council as a project in the future.
Although he sympathized with Councilor Zelenka’s desire to protect a neighborhood in his ward, Councilor Clark
could not support the amendment because he did not want to contribute yet another story about how the council
would not cooperate and coordinate with Springfield, which was a major concern for City residents.
Mayor Piercy understood what councilors Zelenka and Bettman were trying to achieve, but questioned whether there
was another way to address the issue that did not require Springfield to readopt the ordinance. City Attorney Jerome
volunteered to return with a legal memorandum on the topic. She did not think approving the Metro Plan amendment
authorized future additional ramps. She did not think ramps could be constructed without being placed in the
greenway, which would require council action or a Metro Plan amendment. Mayor Piercy asked if the item was time-
sensitive. City Attorney Jerome said that the council could not hear the next item pending resolution of the item
before the council because of the ex parte issue.
Ms. O’Donnell indicated that ODOT would like to move forward as soon as possible given its concerns about the
time limits for doing the necessary in-water work . ODOT hoped to have action by the council break.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 10
Meeting
Councilor Ortiz understood the concerns expressed by Councilors Zelenka and Bettman but was also worried about
the message being sent to Springfield. She believed the council would have an opportunity to act at a later time in
regard to the ramps and wanted to move ahead at this time.
Councilor Bettman said she would be happy to defer action until the council had more specific legal advice that
council approval would not be “de facto” approval of future on-ramps. She believed a delay would give the City
Manager time to communicate with Springfield and “smooth the way” without precipitous action. Councilor
Bettman said if the amendment failed she would move to table the item for action prior to the council recess. She
said that everyone was in a hurry, but such projects took “years and decades.”
Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Bettman
voting yes.
Councilor Pryor supported the motion on the table. He did not think anyone could “sneak ramps in” because they
would require an additional approval process. In addition, the last time he talked with ODOT staff, it had indicated
such ramps were not in ODOT’s plans and that, if requested, Eugene and Springfield would have to pay for them.
He did not believe the local community had the money to pay for such ramps. He suggested that the proposal to add
ramps had little probability of occurring.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to delay the vote to
give the City Manager time to talk to the Springfield City Manager about the concern’s regarding the
new ramps. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman, and
Zelenka voting yes.
Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no.
Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4982,
an ordinance amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text in the Willamette Greenway Section.
Councilor Bettman indicated she had seconded the motion in her role as council vice president but would vote against
it.
Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no, and Councilor
Solomon being out of the room when the vote was taken.
7. DISCUSSION:
I-5 Willamette River Bridge—Bridge Design Type Selection
Tim Dodson of ODOT provided an overview of the bridge design selection process. He first noted the public
involvement process, reviewed the integrated project timeline, and shared information about the bridge types under
consideration. Mr. Dodson discussed the evaluation process for the bridge design, noting a Citizen Advisory Group
decision was anticipated in early August. He noted the final authority for the design rested with the Major Projects
Branch of ODOT. He reviewed the input that would be considered in the selection process by the Project Design
Team; that team’s recommendation would be endorsed by the manager of the Major Projects Branch.
Mr. Dodson invited questions about the process.
Mayor Piercy appreciated the thorough community outreach effort done by ODOT and its attention to environmental
concerns. She liked the through-arch design.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 11
Meeting
Councilor Solomon said she took the Web survey and thought it was fun. She asked which design emerged as the
public favorite. Ms. Dodson said 55 percent of first place votes went to the through-arch bridge, which also had 25
percent of the last place votes. The deck arch bridge had 35 percent of first place votes and 70 percent of the
combined first and second place votes, and only three percent of the last place votes.
Councilor Poling expressed support for the through-arch as a first preference to the deck-arch, his second preference,
and asked about the difference in costs between the options. Mr. Dodd said that staff was still discussing the costs of
the options and he hoped to have that information available by August 5, 2008. He added that one of the most
affordable bridges appeared to be the deck-arch bridge and the most expensive the through-rch bridge. He reiterated
that those estimates were premature.
Councilor Poling asked which bridge had the least impact on the river and riverbank. Mr. Dodson said that they all
had the same pier locations and number of piers and were the same in that regard as to impact. The deck options had
an additional pier south of Franklin Boulevard between the road and the river.
Councilor Zelenka also liked the through-arch with the deck-arch a second choice. He raised the issue of storm
water, which was of importance to his constituents. He said the issue of drainage was important to them, and he
hoped ODOT addressed it. Mr. Dodson said that ODOT had storm water specialists and he would pass that
information on to them. He asked Councilor Zelenka if he could share any specifics about what problems he hoped
to solve. Councilor Zelenka had nothing specific to offer Mr. Dodson but thought there was a problem that ODOT
should address. Mr. Dodson said he would appreciate more specific guidance about any problems that existed.
Councilor Zelenka believed the project development team was working on the issue. Mr. Dodson said the engineering
details in regard to drainage were being worked out by ODOT’s consultant. Councilor Zelenka promised to get back
to Mr. Dodson with specifics.
Councilor Bettman asked if the half-arch could be a whole-arch so it did not look so off-center and asymmetrical, and
asked if ODOT had considered replacing the two large arches with one larger arch, and placing the piers farther
apart. Mr. Dodson said that the only way to accomplish a single span would be through a suspension bridge. He
added that the higher the span, the higher the cost per square foot.
Councilor Bettman also liked the through-arch because of the element of Franklin Boulevard and hoped something
could be done to beautify the view from Franklin Boulevard as well as from the river.
Councilor Bettman asked how the design elements accommodated future new ramps. Mr. Dodson said ODOT did
not contemplate accommodating new ramps, but accommodating any type of interchange design for the Glenwood-
Franklin with a hole under Franklin Boulevard wide and high enough to accommodate up to seven extra lanes of
traffic. However, it was very unlikely that one would ever have seven lanes. He noted that the AIA study of the
Franklin Boulevard corridor did not contemplate seven lanes.
Councilor Bettman wanted the bridge design to be adequate to accommodate the reconstruction of the existing ramps,
not new ramps. Mr. Dodson pointed out the findings called for reconstruction of the existing ramps.
Chris Henry of the Public Works Department clarified the scope of the project, which did not include ramps at
Franklin Boulevard. He said that ODOT’s reference to ramps was to reconstruction of existing ramps to allow it to
connect to a new elevation of I-5.
Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for the work done by ODOT and recalled his earlier support for the deck-
arch bridge, although he thought it had safety issues. He thought the deck-arch had the same potential but believed
they could be mitigated. He liked the through-arch design as well and indicated it would be his first choice now.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 12
Meeting
Councilor Clark noted his support for the through-arch design first, followed by the box girder design because of the
views they provided to the river. He asked if ODOT had done an analysis of safety concerns as regarded the design.
Mr. Dodson thought it was possible to design and secure the bridge in a manner that made it difficult for people to
access from the ground. He agreed with Councilor Clark that it was a point of consideration for the bridge design.
The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 13
Meeting
ATTACHMENT C
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon
October 8, 2008
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Bonny
Bettman, Alan Zelenka.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order at 11:58 a.m. She noted
that Councilor Chris Pryor was on a visit to Eugene’s Sister City Kakegawa, Japan.
A. WORK SESSION:
Sustainability Commission Recommendations
City Manager Jon Ruiz shared his excitement about sustainability. He said this would be the first set of recommen-
dations to come before the City Council from the Sustainability Commission. He noted that the commission had
made three recommendations, but the third was more administrative in nature and staff was moving forward with it.
He explained that the third piece was more of a triple bottom line framework from which to evaluate policies and
strategies as they were brought before the council in the future. He felt this tied into the council goals regarding
sustainability. He asked Sustainability Manager, Felicity Fahy, to come to the table.
Ms. Fahy introduced Sustainability Commission Chair, Will Shaver, and chair of the subcommittee, Josh Bruce.
Mr. Shaver explained that the commission had created a subcommittee consisting of five members to review the
recommendations in the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI) and those from the Portland Peak Oil Task Force
report. He said the subcommittee had arrived at a number of recommendations as a result of this review, two of
which were currently before the council.
Mr. Bruce thanked the Mayor and the City Council for its support. He also acknowledged the work of Ms. Fahy and
other staff people. He called the work the commission had done “exciting and rewarding.”
Ms. Ortiz arrived.
Mr. Bruce stated that the work of the SBI had included much community involvement and the subcommittee had
drawn heavily from it. He said the subcommittee had been challenged by the breadth of what it could bring to the
council and decided to focus on the policy-related items. He related that the first recommendation was to have all
city-owned facilities and operations carbon-neutral by the year 2020; if that was not possible the focus should then be
on local carbon offsets.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 1
Work Session
Mr. Bruce said the second recommendation recognized that the City could only do so much on this issue and sought
to set up a mechanism for the City to engage as a leader in developing partnerships in order to formulate a commu-
nity climate action plan that would allow them to collectively move forward on reducing carbon emissions in Eugene.
Mayor Piercy asked them to discuss the carbon emissions work and inventories that had been done for the City and
for the community as a whole. Ms. Fahy responded that a couple of years earlier the facilities division developed a
partnership group that conducted an inventory of community greenhouse gas emissions. They gathered the informa-
tion from a variety of sources and were able to collate emissions from 2005 and then the levels from 1999 in order to
analyze how they had changed and to provide a baseline. She related that this year the facilities staff had conducted a
greenhouse gas inventory for City operations, and the final report was being written up. She noted that the summary
of the internal City greenhouse gas report was contained in the council agenda packets.
Ms. Ortiz thanked the commissioners for the work they had done. She appreciated the work that City staff had done
on this as well.
Mr. Clark also thanked everyone who served on the Sustainability Commission and the staff who worked on the
inventory and materials. He agreed with the goal of moving the City’s operations to a more sustainable way of doing
business. He noted that the first motion indicated that all of the City-owned facilities and vehicles were to be carbon-
neutral by 2020. He asked if any cost analysis of this had been conducted. He wanted to know the cost of the
procedural in-house staff changes necessary for the City to get closer to carbon-neutrality and what the cost of
offsetting credits would be. Mr. Bruce replied that “a lot of the answer depends.” He averred that it was important
to understand that the approach they took would be instrumental in terms of what they would face in cost implica-
tions over time.
Mr. Clark pointed out that they were talking about ten City budget years. He said in that amount of time there would
be “some very heavy lifting” in the budget. He preferred to have a stronger sense of cost prior to making such a firm
commitment.
Ms. Fahy stated that an internal team had been formed to develop a plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2020. The
priority, would be to further reduce emissions first. She said the energy management work undertaken had saved
approximately $1.7 million and had decreased emissions. She thought there would be some actions, which would
cost more up front but would save money later. She noted that it would cost approximately $300,000 annually to
offset current emissions if the City did nothing else to change its behavior and decrease emissions.
Mr. Clark asked if she could provide a little more data in regard to the specifics of that number and what it was
based on. Ms. Fahy replied that it was based on buying offsets from a quality offset provider. She said they planned
to work with a reputable dealer with measurable results, which would cost approximately $25 to $30 per ton of
carbon to offset.
Glen Svendsen, division manager for the Facility Management Division, stated that currently the
City’s emissions in Scope 1, comprised of emissions directly put into the environment, and Scope 2, which while used
by the City directly, came from elsewhere (e.g. electricity), added up to 8,940 metric tons per year. He said staff
used the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) environmental fund, which was a seller of offsets, as a benchmark
for costs.
Mr. Clark asked if the funds that would be utilized to purchase local offsets had been identified. Mr. Bruce replied
that they had not been specifically identified. He thought adopting the goal first would help to establish the “playing
field for how we will get there.”
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 2
Work Session
Mr. Clark said he could back the idea in general terms but it gave him pause to say that the City “shall do so”
without the details such as from where it would be funded.
Ms. Taylor thanked the commission. She opined that the council had done a good job of selecting its members and
that the Mayor’s leadership on sustainability should be commended. She recalled that she had suggested sustainabil-
ity as a possible goal 12 years ago and people “thought it was a weird idea.” She averred that if the City achieved
sustainable principles it would be priceless and cost would not be relevant.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to formally adopt the goal
of making all City-owned facilities and City operations carbon neutral by 2020.
Ms. Bettman did not think 2020 set an aggressive timeline. She declared that Portland had been successful in its
sustainability movement and had marketed it as an economic development tool. She said she would support the
motion.
Mayor Piercy averred that it was the right thing to do and a practical solution. She said Eugene would be aiming for
the practical and sensible things to pursue, not unlike the solar panel array that Industrial Finishes had installed and
the Eugene Water & Electric Board’s (EWEB) investment in wind power.
Ms. Solomon agreed that there should be an analysis of the costs. She felt that the council should be analyzing the
recommendation through the same filter it used to analyze everything. She said part of economic development was
job creation and this should be part of the analysis. She asked if the commission was tracking job creation through
the Sustainability Commission. Ms. Fahy responded that the commission had discussed job creation but it had been
discussed in a broader context and was not currently being tracked.
Mr. Bruce stated that the task the subcommittee had taken on was to look at what was already there. He encouraged
the councilors to review the SBI report. He underscored that it was their intent to present a broader framework for a
long-term direction. He thought this would give staff the ability to come back and present options.
Ms. Solomon ascertained from Mr. Bruce that the commission’s intent was to provide the first step and then the next
step would be an analysis of what it would mean socially, environmentally, and economically.
In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Fahy confirmed that the $300,000 estimated cost would
be annual if the City did nothing to further reduce carbon emissions. Ms. Solomon responded that the City was not
doing nothing. She underscored that she was not saying that she would not support it; but she wanted to see some
clearer data.
Mr. Clark remarked that he did not think the actions would change the “entire world,” but the City could get behind
the ideals of sustainability. He said they needed to be operating in a more sustainable fashion both publicly and
privately. He commented that his challenge was that this was a specific City goal, but there were competing
priorities and budgetary concerns. He felt the recommendations were a little open-ended in terms of what they could
cost and what some of the details were for implementation. He thought the motion could be adjusted to say that with
the idea in mind of moving toward carbon neutrality by the year 2020, the City would like to know the full
implementation costs or to hear back from the staff and the committee what some of the “potential roads to travel
would be.” He stressed that he agreed with the ideals behind the recommendations.
In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Fahy clarified that the initials ‘i.e.’ in the motion were akin to
“that means.”
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 3
Work Session
Mayor Piercy asked how specific the motion was to the deadline of 2020 to offset the remaining emissions. She
supported moving in this direction but she wanted to leave some room in case a financial situation arose that would
require different sets of decisions.
Mr. Bruce stated that the subcommittee’s intent was for the City of Eugene to be carbon neutral by 2020. He said
the City could continue to choose to purchase hybrid vehicles for its fleet, as an example, in order to meet that
deadline and could make other choices along those lines.
Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to say that all City-owned facili-
ties and City operations shall move towards the goal of carbon neutrality by the year 2020 and that
the commission and staff shall inform the council of the cost for doing so prior to implementation.
Ms. Bettman questioned the amendment. She felt that it could lead to the council micromanaging “every single tiny
decision.” She commented that the council had a goal to adequately staff the police department and then worked
through it during each budget process to determine the staffing that could be implemented.
Mr. Clark clarified that his amendment was not intended to micromanage, it was an attempt to place a “point of
pause” in the recommendation in order to analyze the costs and budget implications and make the budgetary
decisions.
Mr. Poling thought it was a mistake to call out a $300,000 to $350,000 annual cost. He felt the public would only
see a big price tag coming from the City’s general fund. He said they should have an analysis of the overall costs.
He indicated he would support Mr. Clark’s amendment.
Mr. Ruiz remarked that it would be more difficult to conduct a full financial analysis prior to making decisions as
directed by the policy. He felt the recommendation would put into place a policy that would be used as a filtering
process to determine how a purchase or activity would impact the particular policy.
Mayor Piercy averred that it was a shared goal that all operations and facilities of the City “shall be” carbon neutral
by 2020 and that the City would put processes and policies in place to try to get there. She asked if there was
appropriate language that would allow them to move forward with a unanimous voice.
Mr. Clark reiterated that it was not his desire to micromanage the staff’s operations. He understood the City
Manager to say that this was a somewhat fundamental shift in policy and would drive choices that would have
economic impacts. Mr. Ruiz responded that their choices were being driven by sustainability goals that the council
had already set. He said they had many people who were working on purchasing plans and vehicle procurement,
among others, that were already being guided by the sustainability goals. He averred that the recommendation would
place a tighter framework on how those decisions would be made.
Mr. Clark reiterated that he liked the idea of the goal, but there was a difference between saying firmly that the City
would accomplish this one way or the other no matter the cost and saying that the goal was worthy but it would be
good to have a firm grasp on the costs, impacts, and tradeoffs. In this way, he averred, they could make an intelligent
decision.
Ms. Bettman declared that the council had passed “many goals” without specifics. She said a goal without specific
language attached to it would be brought back before the council by staff on a regular basis. She suggested that the
language could be changed to include that staff would check back in with the council at major policy or financial
impact decision points. She indicated that she would revise her motion to reflect that if Mr. Clark would agree to
withdraw his amendment.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 4
Work Session
Mr. Ruiz suggested that staff could bring back an annual work plan for the council to evaluate. He thought this
could potentially be part of the budget process.
Mr. Clark withdrew his motion to amend. Ms. Solomon withdrew her second.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, revised her motion to include language that would require
City staff to present for council approval an annual work plan including analysis of implementation
strategies and costs. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. (Mr. Zelenka had yet to arrive.)
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a community
climate action plan within 18 months, that would (1) set a carbon emissions reduction goal and es-
tablish targets for achieving that goal, (2) identify strategies to achieve those targets, (3) identify
necessary adaptations, (4) develop measures for tracking success, (5) include periodic progress re-
ports back to the community with annual reports of progress to the Sustainability Commission, and
(6) include its financial impacts.
Mr. Clark observed that this affected the whole community. He liked that the motion was more analysis- based and
would inform the City how a climate action plan could be developed and implemented. He said he would like to
know what the financial impacts would be on the private sector, should any of the suggestions become regulatory in
nature. He thought the City should provide remedies which were incentive-based.
Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to include an analysis of the financial impacts for imple-
mentation of any regulatory measures.
Ms. Bettman declined the friendly amendment. She averred that those issues would be vetted before they came
before the City Council as there were business representatives on the Sustainability Commission.
Mr. Clark commented that he could “live with” the motion with the understanding that the council should take note of
any disincentive for job creation that could arise as a by-product of this.
The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
Ms. Solomon left the meeting.
B. WORK SESSION:
Police Auditor Recruitment Process
Alana Holmes, Director of the Human Resources Division, introduced Eric Middleton, a recruiter with Alliance
Resource Consulting. She noted that most of the councilors had met with him and the rest would be meeting with
him later in the day. She stated that the purpose of the work session was to discuss the brochure and the timeline for
the recruitment process.
Mr. Middleton reported that he had met with 16 contacts and had picked up an additional 19 contacts he would have
to make. He hoped to have an additional week to make those contacts. He said the planned timeline originally
indicated that he would return the completed work to the council in one week. He wanted to complete the phone calls
by October 17 and return the draft of the recruitment profile the following week. He intended to return it to the
Mayor and City Council for them to review and comment on. He thought that if the councilors and Mayor could
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 5
Work Session
return it by October 27, the recruitment process could be opened after that. He projected that recruitment would run
through November and into the first couple of weeks in December.
Mr. Zelenka arrived at 12:58 p.m.
Mr. Clark had been under the impression that a job description had been created. Ms. Holmes responded that the
subcommittee had written a job description for the first Police Auditor hiring process. She circulated copies of that
description.
Ms. Bettman was confused as to why Mr. Middleton’s further contacts would “put off the process.” She agreed that
the brochure needed to be updated but thought a three-week delay was unnecessary. She added that she would prefer
to tweak the actual qualifications to make holding a Juris Doctorate (JD) a requirement.
Mr. Clark agreed that holding a law degree would be beneficial, but he was not certain that making it mandatory was
advisable. He did not want to disqualify someone who had other good qualifications but no JD.
Ms. Ortiz recalled that it seemed that in the last pool of applicants there had been a division between those who held
doctorates and who did not. She likened it to the “cream rising to the top.” She was amenable to making a JD a
mandatory requirement.
Mr. Clark suggested that the language indicate that possession of a JD was very desirable.
Ms. Taylor agreed that having a JD should be a mandatory requirement.
Mr. Zelenka averred that the laws greatly impacted the position. He felt a person with a JD would have a greater
understanding of law and constitutional law.
Mr. Poling remarked that he had known some people with law degrees who were not smart at all. He pointed out that
one of the two finalists in the last hiring process did not have a law degree. He could not support making a law
degree a mandatory requirement, though he would agree to include language strongly recommending it.
Ms. Bettman felt the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference would
present a good opportunity for recruiting. She wanted to reach agreement at the present meeting in order to provide
Ms. Ortiz with the complete information for the conference. She reiterated that the auditor position was to help the
City save money from litigation and settlement expenses. She believed that a person with a legal degree would have a
greater understanding of the risk assessment and confidentiality involved in the position.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the revisions to the Police Auditor bro-
chure and to include an update of the brochure’s information and a requirement that the candidate
hold a law degree.
Mr. Poling wanted to ensure that part of the update to the brochure would be in regard to compensation and benefits.
Ms. Holmes responded that the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for non-represented employees had been included
in the salary schedule for the position.
In response to a question from City Attorney Glenn Klein, Ms. Bettman clarified that it was her intent for the
individual councilors to review the job description and brochure and to bring up any problems they might have with it
at the meeting on October 13.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 6
Work Session
Mr. Clark noted that they had just received the job description. He wanted the opportunity to review this prior to
approving the motion. He also did not want to limit the scope of applicants by including the requirement for a JD
and intended to oppose the motion.
Ms. Bettman did not think the job description was necessary for recruitment, given that the brochure would be
completed.
Mr. Zelenka did not have any problems with the brochure. He reiterated his support for requiring a law degree. He
thought the job description should be reviewed and approved but he did not foresee that it would take much work.
Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment that would direct the councilors to modify the brochure
for final approval on October 13; then in the meanwhile the councilors should look at the job de-
scription and suggest any modifications they felt needed to be made in order to give final approval on
October 13.
Ms. Bettman indicated that she would accept the first portion of the friendly amendment, but not the portion related
to the job description.
Ms. Holmes stated that a requirement for a JD would prevent the council from reviewing applications from anyone
that did not hold such a degree.
Mr. Clark asked Mr. Middleton what he thought about looking at only those applicants who held law degrees. Mr.
Middleton replied that it was limiting. He averred that there were some very good auditors that did not have a JD.
Mr. Middleton recommended that the job description be included in the brochure/profile.
The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Clark voting in opposition.
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to bring the police auditor job description for final ap-
proval, with councilors submitted changes to staff “in a timely fashion,” on October 13 in order to
provide the complete profile to Ms. Ortiz for the NACOLE conference.
Mr. Klein pointed out that the deadline for items to be submitted for the October 13 agenda packet was 5:00 p.m.
At Mayor Piercy’s request, Mr. Zelenka restated his motion.
Mr. Klein noted that Mr. Middleton would not be available for the October 13 meeting.
Mr. Clark observed that one thing they had discussed at length was the level of understanding of national trends the
auditor should have. He thought Mr. Middleton’s understanding of what was done in other places would be helpful
to the job description.
Mr. Poling felt the council was rushing to get this done and was leaving out some steps.
Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the motion to schedule final approval for Octo-
ber 22.
Ms. Bettman disputed the necessity of Mr. Middleton’s participation. She felt the brochure described the role in
terms of what the council had adopted in the ordinance and was “cut and dried.” She did not want to use the police
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 7
Work Session
auditor’s job description as a way to take away the authority of the police auditor position. She agreed that there
were other communities that had police auditors but she opined that Eugene should not base its ordinance on the
ordinances of other cities.
Mr. Poling did not want to change the ordinance; he wanted more time to review the job description. He felt that Ms.
Bettman was saying they should staple it to the brochure now and “send it on out.” He asked
if time would be taken to review it, given that she had called it “cut and dried.”
Mayor Piercy suggested that they add the decision on the brochure and job description to the agenda for October 20.
Mr. Poling revised his motion to make it a friendly amendment to move the decision point to October
20. Mr. Zelenka accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second, Mr. Clark.
Mr. Clark called Ms. Bettman’s comments that characterized a desire to make sure the job description was right as
some manner of attempt to reduce the authority of the police auditor “unfortunate.” He stressed that “nothing of the
kind” was going on. He opined that there were legitimate questions to ask and legitimate points that were not clear.
He felt that if it was all clear and simple there would be no disagreements about it.
The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
The meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2008 Page 8
Work Session