Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: October 24, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2005, Work Session, October 4, 2005, Boards, Commission, and Committees Interviews, October 5, 2005, Boards, Commission, and Committees Interviews, and October 6, 2005, Boards, Commission, and Committees Interviews. ATTACHMENTS A.September 26, 2005, Work Session B.October 4, 2005, Boards, Commission, and Committees Interviews C.October 5, 2005, Boards, Commission, and Committees Interviews D.October 6, 2005, Boards, Commission, and Committees Interviews FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051024\S0510243A.doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall September 26, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pape, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the September 26,2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy welcomed Acting-in-Capacity City Manager Angel Jones, who was filling in for City Manager Dennis Taylor while he attended a conference. Mayor Piercy also announced that Mr. Poling would participate in the meeting via speakerphone. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy invited all residents to attend the upcoming Eugene Celebration occurring September 30- October 2. Mayor Piercy said that on October 2, she and Mr. Pape would depart for a visit to two of Eugene's sister cities in Chinju, North Korea, and Kakagawa, Japan. She looked forward to reaffirming and strengthening those relationships. Ms. Solomon reported that in response to two recent drowning deaths, signs had been erected at the Golden Garden ponds informing people ofthe ponds' depths. She thanked staff of the Parks and Open Space Division for its efforts, saying work was ongoing to improve safety conditions at the ponds. Some of the proposed improvements were capital-intensive, and Ms. Solomon anticipated that she would raise them during the Budget Committee's review of the fiscal year 2007 budget. Mr. Pape reported on the most recent Oregon Passenger Rail Committee meeting, saying the committee was attempting to secure more member participation following a downturn in attendance after the committee managed to retain funding for the second passenger train during the most recent legislative session. He complimented former Mayor Ruth Bascom and Albany Mayor Chuck McClaren for their work in keeping the committee on track. Ms. Taylor said she recently returned from a meeting of the National League of Cities "No Child Left Behind" Task Force and Human Development Committee in San Antonio, Texas, and indicated she would soon provide a more in-depth report on the work of those groups later. While in San Antonio, she had seen many tired people who escaped Hurricane Rita filling the hotels, and who fortunately had been able to escape with their dogs. Mr. Kelly reported that two applicants for the Budget Committee who received ballots to be interviewed MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page I could not attend the proposed interview date. He asked for council consent to direct staff to work with the candidates to find interview dates that worked. Councilors nodded in assent. Mr. Kelly said the Oregon State Legislature passed a bill allowing Oregon cities to make application to the Federal Forest Legacy Program for forest acquisitions with the urban growth boundary and asked if staff was seeking opportunities to take advantage of that funding. He also asked if the council had any role in that process. Mr. Kelly reported that the Region 2050 long-range planning project sponsored a very well-attended meeting at the Lane County Fairgrounds on September 22. About 90 to 100 participants engaged in high- quality discussions about the future of the community. Mr. Kelly said the meeting was the last of a dozen public meetings in the region. The Region 2050 Policy Board would review the information collected through the public process and prepare a draft strategy for review by all participating jurisdictions. Ms. Bettman said she recently spoke at the Lane County Historic Museum in conjunction with an exhibit about public safety in Lane County. The museum was sponsoring a series of speakers through the month of November. She said the exhibit was very interesting and she encouraged councilors and residents to visit it if possible. Ms. Bettman announced that Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson would hold a public forum at the Lane County Fairgrounds on September 27 for the purpose of hearing from residents how they felt about the future of the fairgrounds. She would also be at the forum. Mr. Pryor commended the Region 2050 planning process, saying he was impressed by the depth of the community input being sought. Mr. Pryor said the Board of the Lane Metro Partnership met the previous week to discuss the organiza- tional evaluation. The evaluation indicated four areas for improvement: I) a more effective marketing outreach program; 2) continued improvement of the partner relationships; 3) adoption of a work plan with specific goals and measurable outcomes; and 4) better engagement of the expertise represented on the board. He described the board's discussion as very good, and said he had been encouraged by its direction. He noted the State suffered from a general shortage of "shovel-ready" land, and he character- ized that as both a problem and an opportunity. Mr. Pryor said the Human Services Commission (HSC) met earlier that day and he thought the discussion, which was focused around goal-setting and strategizing, was very productive. The commission also discussed its role and how it could be more effective as a policy making body. Mr. Pryor said it appeared that several councilors would miss the October 11 meeting related to the Coburg wastewater treatment proposal. He anticipated an interesting discussion. With regard to the HSC meeting, Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor that the commission had a good conversation. She observed that as a new councilor she frequently found herself in the role of "new person," but she was not as "new" as many people thought, so it was interesting to see people's percep- tions. Ms. Ortiz reported the Trainsong neighbors held their neighborhood picnic on September 21. About 75 people attended, and many people signed up for additional participation in neighborhood issues. She said that school supplies were given away to children. Ms. Ortiz hoped to see more citizens participate in the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 2 organization's monthly meetings. Mr. Poling noted that the mayor's monthly forum was scheduled for the following day at 5 p.m. at the Albertsons on Coburg Road. Ms. Jones reported that Eugene was competing with Sacramento, California, for the 2008 Olympic Trails. Six members ofthe site selection committee would visit Eugene the next day to review the community's assets and participate in a question and answer forum. The winner would be announced on October 14. She noted her participation in the local organizing committee, which would make a presentation to the site selection committee. Ms. Jones reminded the council of the upcoming kick-off for the Delta Ponds restoration and habitat improvement project, which was being done in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers. The kick- off was scheduled the next day at 10 a.m. near Valley River Center. She invited the council and public to attend. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Ortiz for a motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Papt\ moved to accept the Police Commission Annual Report of July 25,2005. Ms. Solomon asked if the report included the commission's recommendations related to the external auditor issue. Ms. Ortiz said yes. Ms. Solomon said that while she respected and appreciated the work of the commission, she did not support its recommendation for an external audit and charter amendment. She determined from Ms. Ortiz that she interpreted the motion as the council's acknowledgement of the report rather than its endorsement of the recommendations. Ms. Solomon did not want a vote of acceptance to be translated for approval of the recommendation for an external auditor; however, she would support the motion. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged Ms. Solomon's concern. Ms. Bettman asked the maker of the motion to accept a friendly amendment to "approve" the report rather than "accept" it. She maintained that throughout her years on the council, the council traditionally voted to "approve" reports and "adopt" plans. The council traditionally voted to "accept" reports and plans only when there was a significant degree of opposition on the part of council to the document, but it wanted to acknowledge the work that had gone into it. She said that councilors who did not approve of the commission's report could vote against the motion, but the council already approved the commission's work plan, which included steps to implement the report, and placed a recommendation for an external auditor on the ballot. Ms. Ortiz declined to accept a friendly amendment because she wanted to give the entire council the opportunity to thank the commission and acknowledge its work. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by replacing the word "accept" with the word "approve." The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Taylor for a motion. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 3 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to 1) prepare an ordinance and supporting findings to impose a moratorium under Oregon Revised Statute 197.520(3) for properties identified as "Sites E37" on the Goal 5 maps; 2) set a public hearing on the ordinance as soon as possible but not less than 45 days from the date that notice is provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); and 3) provide notice of the proposed moratorium to the DLCD as soon as possible. Responding to a request for input from Ms. Solomon, City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that if the council adopted the motion, the earliest the public hearing proposed in the motion could be held was at the council's November 14 meeting. At that time, the council was scheduled to take action on the Goal 5 ordinance. Under State law, anyone who submitted an application before a moratorium took effect was grandfathered in under the application criteria in place at the time the application was submitted and would be governed by those criteria. For example, if an application was submitted to the council at 5 p.m. on November 14 and the council subsequently passed a moratorium changing the application criteria, the changed criteria would not affect the filed application. There was nothing under State law the City could do to affect anyone who wished to file an application between now and when the moratorium took effect. In regard to the cost of implementing the motion, Mr. Klein said staff estimated a cost of between $5,000 and $10,000 to draft an ordinance and prepare the associated findings. Mr. Klein noted that the motion would affect approximately 230 tax lots contained in the E37 sites. Natural Resources Planner Neil Bjorklund said that Sites E37 included areas that were not recommended for protection by the Planning Commission as well as areas recommended for protection. Ms. Solomon asked if the motion would affect the relationship the City already established with the property owners. Mr. Bjorklund said that the moratorium was not expected by them, based on the trajectory of the Goal 5 process to this point. He said the site was owned by two individuals who had been participating in the Goal 5 process. Ms. Solomon was concerned by the motion because the property owners had been working with the City under a certain set of standards and she did not think it showed good faith to "move the goal posts." She did not believe a moratorium was necessary to achieve what Ms. Taylor and her neighbors in the south hills wanted in regard to the property, and therefore noted her opposition to the motion. Mr. Pape asked if the City had to provide notice to the owners of all the lots on the site. Mr. Klein did not think State law required individualized notices. Mr. Pape asked about the potential of Ballot Measure 37 claims from the adoption of the motion. Mr. Klein acknowledged that some would argue such a moratorium would give rise to a Ballot Measure 37 claim. However, he did not believe that Ballot Measure 37 was implicated in the situation. Mr. Pape indicated he was not supportive of the motion, but ifit passed he hoped all affected property owners would be notified. Ms. Bettman asked what Ms. Taylor was hoping to accomplish through the motion. Ms. Taylor said she was attempting to forestall undesirable development on the property. Ms. Bettman indicated that when she first heard of Ms. Taylor's intent to make the motion, she thought it was more targeted on natural resources under the imminent threat of development. She asked how many acres on the site were recommended for protection. Mr. Bjorklund recalled that between 30 and 40 acres on the site were not recommended for any level of protection at all. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Bjorklund noted that the City received an application for a planned unit development (pun) on the Joe Green parcel earlier that day. Ms. Bettman perceived the motion as creating expense and process without accomplishing anything as State law would still give the property owners time to submit an application to develop the property. She said that she was inclined to vote against the motion. Mr. Pryor said the intentions of those who wanted to protect the property were good, but he did not think the motion achieved the desired goal. He said the motion appeared to be broader than what was needed, and Mr. Klein's remarks indicated that the motion would not have the desired effect. He said most troubling was that the passage of such moratoriums required the council to have a good solid basis in fact, law, or science. He was concerned that the motion seemed to reflect an "I don't want this to happen because I don't like it" as opposed to "I don't want this to happen because it's not supportable." He acknowledged those points were debatable but the debate needed to occur. Until it did, he did not think the council should adopt a moratorium. He was also inclined to oppose the motion. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Taylor if her reference to Sites E37 encompassed the stream corridors and adjacent riparian areas, or the entire site, including the upland habitat on the draft inventory until removed by the council in 2003. Ms. Taylor said the motion was intended to preserve the entire site until the City secured the scientific evidence that justified its protection. She said the language came from the attorney working for those who wished to see the property preserved. She continued to support a moratorium as a means of delaying development on the property. Ms. Taylor did not think the property should be developed at all. Mr. Kelly referred to Ms. Taylor's statement about waiting for scientific evidence, and noted that under State law a moratorium period was for 120 days and it could only be extended up to six months. He asked if the council could get through the upland inventory in time to beat that moratorium deadline. Mr. Bjorklund recalled that at the July work session, staff provided the council with a timeline that indicated the inventory and recommendations for the upland sites would take 18 months to prepare. If Goal 5 staff was working on the moratorium, it could not work on the uplands inventory. Ms. Taylor suggested the site could be separated into smaller pieces for the purpose of completing the uplands inventory earlier. Mr. Bjorklund did not think that work could be done by the time the morato- rium expired. He said that field work for the study could not start until spring because of the need to identify the location of flowering native plant species of concern. Ms. Taylor thought it important to do anything that could be done to postpone the development of the property in question. She said the cost cited by Mr. Klein for the preparation of an ordinance was not large compared to City expenditures on other, less important items. Ms. Bettman agreed that expense would not be a consideration if the objective of the motion could be realized. She questioned to what extent the riparian areas and setbacks could be protected through the PUD process. Mr. Bjorklund indicated that while he had not reviewed the recently submitted application, he had seen prior drafts, with the most recent setting aside virtually the entire riparian corridor included on the City's inventory. He said that projection of the riparian edge could also be addressed through the PUD process. Ms. Bettman asked if staff would use its discretion to ensure that protection occurred. Mr. Bjorklund said yes, not as a Goal 5 resource, but as an important element of the site in the PUD process. The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting yes. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 5 B. WORK SESSION: Road Fund Status and Service System Stabilization Strategies Ms. Jones introduced the item, noting the issue was not a new one for the council. She said staff was seeking policy direction from the council as it moved into development of the fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget. Public Works Director Kurt Corey was present for the item. Mr. Corey briefly overviewed the City's transportation-related services and currently available funding sources. The majority of Road Fund revenues for operations and maintenance came from Eugene's share of the State Highway Trust Fund, with other moneys coming from the County/City Road Partnership Agreement with Lane County (expiring in FY07 and unlikely to be renewed) and the Oregon Transporta- tion Act (OTIA III). Mr. Corey noted that two cents of the City's five-cent gas tax would sunset in February 2008. He anticipated that high gasoline prices would impact the revenues generated by that tax, which had not been increased since 1992. In addition, fuel-efficient vehicles helped keep those revenues flat. Mr. Corey reported that staff would soon submit the 2005 version of the Annual Preservation Report, which estimated a backlog of maintenance proj ects in excess of $100 million. He compared existing revenues to needed funding. The comparison indicated $9 million was received in revenues against a need of approximately $10 million annually. He said that in FY06, staff estimated an operating deficit of about $580,000 to be made up that year by the fund balance. After that, there would be a shortfall of between $800,000 and $1 million in FY07, and up to $2 million in FY08. Mr. Corey identified three strategies to address the shortfall: 1) efficiency gains; 2) service reductions; and 3) revenue enhancements. With regard to efficiencies, he noted a 2001 audit of the Road Fund indicated the City's operation was generally efficient when compared to other cities. A subsequent department self-assessment led to its accreditation as one of the few public works agencies in the nation conforming to the best management practices of the American Public Works Association, and a depart- ment restructuring in 2004 that eliminated a number of supervisory positions led to a savings of $850,000. He did not think there were any remaining substantive efficiencies to be realized. With regard to service reductions, Mr. Corey noted examples of the types of reductions needed to effect a $2 million fund reduction included as Attachment B to the agenda item summary (AlS). The reductions included reductions in the Street Tree Program or its move to the General Fund; turning off street lights along residential streets, arterials, and collectors; eliminating non-regulatory sign fabrication, installation, and maintenance; elimination of funding for landscaped median maintenance; elimination of funding for special projects; and reductions in the neighborhood transportation program. With regard to revenue enhancements, Mr. Corey referred the council to the options listed in the AlS, which included the formation of street light maintenance districts; an urban forestry fee; franchise fees for City and other utilities; increased support from General Fund revenues; and the establishment of a transportation system maintenance fee as previously recommended by the Budget Citizen Subcommittee and subsequently implemented and then repealed by the City Council. Mr. Corey endorsed the concept behind such a fee, saying he was aware of no better locally controlled, sustainable, long-term solution to transportation funding. Mr. Corey recommended that the FY07 and beyond Road Fund budgets be prepared with a combination of new and existing resources sufficient to address the ongoing deficit to sustain at least the existing level of service as well as the unfunded capital preservation backlog. He suggested revenue sources could include, MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 6 but not be limited to, the alternative street tree funding, the establishment of street light assessment districts to address arterial and residential street light programs, and the establishment of a transportation system maintenance fee to fund the deferred maintenance backlog as well as other identified needs in the system. Mayor Piercy solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly asked if any councilor present was not totally bored with the continued discussion of transporta- tion funding shortfalls. He said such discussions would continue until the council came together and showed political leadership in identifying a strategy to overcome the shortfall. He said streets, street lights, and street trees were fundamental core services and he was not interested in a service elimination strategy or in charging additional fees. He wanted to find a new revenue source, and he did not think the council could achieve its goals using dozens of special purpose fees. Mr. Kelly believed the council needed to look at new general purpose revenue in the General Fund. He said that moving programs now into the Road Fund into the General Fund without new general purpose revenues would simply serve to eliminate other valuable programs. He said the council needed a fundamental discussion of how it funds basic services in Eugene, given the anticipated shortfalls in many service areas and the expiration of the Library serial levy. Mr. Pape asked if the City knew when a street was reaching the point where an overlay was no longer possible to remedy the situation. Mr. Corey said yes. He said the increase in the backlog would have been more severe if it was not for the fact the City was able to repair some streets before they "fell off the edge." Mr. Pape said staff needed to keep that information in front of the council and the Budget Committee. Mr. Corey said if the City did nothing, assuming a rate of inflation, by the time every street reached failure, the cost would be about $1 billion. Mr. Pape said the council should work on the issue in tandem with the Budget Committee, and suggested time be scheduled for that purpose. Mr. Corey said staff was seeking direction at this time in order to prepare the FY07 budget, which would be reviewed by the committee. Mr. Pape reiterated his interest in having Budget Committee assistance and questioned the timing of the review. He suggested that the budget include both options and sub-options so the committee could evaluate them. Mr. Pape referred to the suggestion for street light assessments districts and asked how the City would determine who would be assessed. Mr. Corey said optimally, he would recommend two district types be established. All residents would pay into a district with communitywide benefit focused on arterial and collector lighting. The other district would be neighborhood-based and whether such a district was formed would depend on whether the affected neighborhood wanted street lights. He said that such districts had a lot of success. Currently, residents receive street lights because of the City's code requirements for new development, and the City paid to operate and maintain the costs of those lights through the Road Fund. Responding to a question from Mr. Pape regarding the proposal to install missing street lighting along arterials, Mr. Corey anticipated the City would develop a plan for street lights similar to the existing Capital Improvement Program. Over a period of time, the council and Budget Committee would set the annual district rates depending on how much of the unlit system they wished to add in over time. Ms. Taylor said she did not care if her street light was present as she preferred darkened streets. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 7 Ms. Taylor said a transportation utility fee (TUF) by any other name was still a TUF. Ms. Taylor noted the council's long-time goal of fair, adequate, and stable resources, and said the council never discussed how to achieve it. She said that the street system should be supported by a new revenue source in the General Fund. She said the council had been unwilling to discuss new revenue sources seriously, and needed to do so. Ms. Taylor found the suggested service reductions unacceptable and said they could lead to additional expenses in the future. She recalled that during budget crisis engendered by the passage of Ballot Measure 5 the City chose to not water some of its parks and later was forced to spend money to replace dead shrubs and trees killed by a lack of water. Mr. Pryor said the issue was new for him but he recognized the council had been dealing with it for a long time. He expressed appreciation for the packet materials, which helped illustrate the size of the problem. He said the council could either increase resources or reduce expenses, and he did not know enough at this point to know if there were actually opportunities for either approach. He did not think the council could solve the problem on its own, and suggested that more citizen input was needed. .Ms. Bettman asked if the City had a standard calculation for the projected estimated operations and maintenance cost for a lane mile of new road. Mr. Corey said the City's pavement management computer model predicted both road condition and estimated maintenance costs and was the source ofthe City's projections for the current backlog. Ms. Bettman said that a key issue for her was that the City continued to build new roads and "pretended" there was no liability associated with them. She believed the construction of new roads was why the City continued to spend money on the problem of the maintenance backlog and it increased in cost. She suggested there were a third option for the council to consider, that of reprioritizing the budget. Ms. Bettman did not support increasing taxes or instituting fees for maintenance and preservation when the City was spending the money it received through the local gas tax and from the federal government for new projects rather than using all possible dollars available for maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman did not think the City should use General Fund dollars to fix potholes as that was what the gas tax was for. She said every department in the City could make a good case for increased revenues to meet gaps in those services, and while those gaps may not be as quantifiable, they were just as real. However, the street funding problem seemed to have been assigned a higher priority than those other shortfalls. She reiterated that reprioritizing the budget would take care of the problem. Ms. Bettman said she did not like looking at the issue in a vacuum apart from other budget issues. Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly suggested it would be interesting if staff provided the council with information regarding the operations, preservation, and maintenance costs for new roads and the growth in lane miles of roadway in the city over the last ten years. He suggested staff estimate maintenance costs for a lane mile of a one- year-old street and a ten-year-old street. Mr. Kelly said he would also be interested in knowing how many dollars that the City could have directed to operations, preservation, and maintenance went to new projects instead over the past four years. Ms. Solomon was not inclined to send the issue back to the Budget Committee, as she had been a member of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee when it reviewed the issue and she believed any new subcommittee would come to the same conclusion as the previous subcommittee. She still believed the transportation MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 8 system maintenance fee would have had the best success in addressing the problem over the long term and continued to believe it was a good alternative. She was sorry it had not worked out. Ms. Solomon suggested the council could craft a transportation system maintenance fee that met most of the needs that existed. She said the transportation system was a utility as well as a key core service, and she did not think it was unreasonable to charge such a fee. She questioned whether the council would be having the discussion if it had retained the fee. Mr. Pape said that a lot of the City's problems in regard to road funding arose from the City's assumption of responsibility for roads that were constructed to County standards rather than urban standards. The City then had to pay for the cost of improving those roads. Mr. Pape expressed interest in the information requested by Mr. Kelly, and said he would also like to know the specific projects involved. Responding to a question from Mr. Pape, Mr. Corey said that he would not characterize it as the norm across the country, but assigning franchise fees to municipally owned utilities was not unusual. Mr. Pape endorsed Mr. Pryor's suggestion for more citizen input into the question of new revenues. Ms. Ortiz said many streets in her ward were not well-maintained and many were severely degraded because they were never brought up to City standards. She did not know the answer to the problem, but she agreed that while the council needed to show leadership, a broader conversation was needed. She liked the idea of reprioritizing the existing budget. She said that her ward had many low-income residents and she questioned whether they could afford the improvements needed to their wards. Ms. Ortiz informed Ms. Taylor that her ward would be happy to take her street light. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Pape, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mr. Pryor said he was not hearing support for Option 1. He believed the council was discussing something along the lines of Option 3, with interest expressed in new revenue options not limited to the ones listed and reprioritization of the budget to the degree possible. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Pape, moved to direct staff to look at Option 2 with a combi- nation of revenue opportunities, including the listed ones or others. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Mr. Kelly said because the motion included the potential for new fees, he could not support it. He recalled that he supported the transportation system maintenance fee in its original form. When it was modified in fall 2004, he no longer supported it. While that was not general purpose revenue, he thought it broad, sustainable, and fair. He was not opposed to revisiting the issue. Mr. Pape offered a friendly amendment, accepted by the maker of the motion, to add to the motion that staff come back within three months with a list of the new proj ects in the Capital Improvement Program funded with money that could have been used for operations, preservation, and maintenance. Ms. Bettman said if staff was dependent on a motion, one should have been provided to the council. The MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 9 motion on the table essentially directed staff to return with options to raise new taxes. She did not support the motion. In regard to the issue of prioritization, Ms. Bettman said the council had voted two or three times on motions directing the actions of the Transportation Planning Committee, the staff committee charged with the tasks of recommending projects to the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Neither council itself nor the Transportation Planning Committee had been able to demonstrate the discipline needed to prioritize maintenance and preservation above new projects, as demonstrated by the council's support for the Chad Drive extension and Monroe Street bicycle project. Ms. Solomon said with due respect, she believed that Ms. Bettman had mischaracterized the discussion about Chad Drive, as the dollars allocated to the project were not necessarily available to the City for reallocation for other purposes. She did not consider that to be a lack of prioritization, pointing out the proj ect was listed in the Capital Improvement Program and staff was simply securing funding for City proj ects. Mr. Pryor summarized the motion. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no; Mr. Poling did not participate in the vote. C. WORK SESSION: Public Safety Task Force Update Mayor Piercy called the council's attention to a summary distributed prior to the meeting in regard to the work of the Public Safety Task Force. She and Mr. Kelly attended the meetings of the task force, which included participation by Lane County and eight to ten other Lane County communities. The document, entitled "Focus, Goals, and Outcomes," described the desired focus, goals, and outcomes for additional public safety funding to achieve a public safety system. Mayor Piercy briefly overviewed the document. Mr. Kelly said the task force had six meetings and would hold another on September 28. There was ultimate agreement about the service recommendations. The upcoming meeting would focus on how to fund the package. Only one of ten jurisdictions supported the use of the property tax, so other options included a personal income tax and a sales tax. The task force would recommend to the Lane Board of County Commissioners whether it should adopt the revenue source by ordinance. Mayor Piercy said she and Mr. Kelly were seeking input from the council with regard to what was acceptable to it. Ms. Bettman did not think that capital infrastructure expenditures belonged in the proposal. She said staffing and services should be included, with no overlap of services already provided by the City. She emphasized that City taxpayers should not be subsidizing rural services. Ms. Bettman did not support the use of property taxes noting that any proposal selected by the Board of County Commissioners should go before the voters. She was concerned about how the money was dedicated and how the task force could guarantee the money continued to remain dedicated to the proposed expenditure. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work done by Mayor Piercy and Mr. Kelly. He did not think their time had been wasted. He said the proposal resembled past public district proposals because it included a combination of enforcement, prevention, operations, and capital. He agreed with Ms. Bettman, MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 10 saying that attempting to blend capital expenditures and operational expenditures together was confusing. He recommended that the capital elements of the proposal be deleted. That would also have the purpose of reducing the amount to something more palatable. Mr. Pryor agreed that property tax proposals were problematic and said income tax proposals did not fare much better. He acknowledged that he perplexed by the funding element component. He said that a sales tax would work but might not be supported. He suggested the task force test all the funding elements with the public through a focus group process. Mr. Pape said he participated in two statewide campaigns for a sales tax and noted Ontario's attempt to pass a sales tax. He suggested that a local sales tax focused on public safety services was a possibility. Ms. Taylor said she would only consider the income tax. She thought the list should be pared down to those things that constituted services to the public. She thought people would vote to support the prosecution of crimes, and said more parole officers were needed. She said the list resembled what the County asked people to vote for before, and was unsuccessful. She did not think the new proposal would pass. Ms. Ortiz also supported the use of the income tax. She determined from Mayor Piercy that the list represented the "kid's meal" approach to funding as opposed to the "deluxe meal" approach. Ms. Ortiz asked what percentage of revenues would be generated from outside and inside the cities. Mr. Kelly said it depended on the revenue source, but he estimated that because Eugene constituted 40 percent of the County population, it was likely to pay 40 percent of the cost. Ms. Solomon appreciated the package and said she would like to see it passed. She was more inclined to support a local income tax rather than a sales tax as she believed that a statewide sales tax was fairer to local businesses. She pointed out that those who could avoid the tax by leaving the community to shop would do so. Mayor Piercy said the public safety funding gap was a big problem, and it greatly affected Eugene as the largest city in the county. She said the package before the council had been pared down considerably in comparison to what was initially presented to the task force. Mayor Piercy said she received many calls from people upset that the system could not address those with mental health problems. Mr. Pryor said he was very supportive of the services being proposed and the people they served. He said with a list so large, there was always something for a voter not to like. He asked what could be done to make the package desirable and acceptable to the voting public. Mr. Kelly said the task force believed the measure might differ from previous measures if it had the support of all Lane County elected officials. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the council's remarks on the inclusion of capital improvements in the package, but pointed out those costs constituted only $1 million of the total. The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 11 Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 12 ATTACHMENTB MINUTES Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 4, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: David Kelly, Gary Pape. Council President George Poling called the October 4,2005, meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOXICS BOARD The council interviewed the following candidates for positions on the Planning Commission: Daniel Herbert, Greg Ringer, David Monk, and Phillip Carroll. All candidates were asked the following questions: 1. Why did you apply for the Planning Commission, and what do you hope to contribute? What key issues would you hope to address as a member ofthe Planning Commission? 2. What is your experience working with a group effectively and especially with regard to long processes? Have you prior experience working with groups in a collective manner? 3. How do you believe the Planning Commission can be most effective in its role as an advisory body to the City Council? Do you have ideas on how to help the City Council make good plan- ning decisions? 4. The Planning Commission must often balance competing interests when developing planning documents and making land use decisions. In your opinion, what are the most important factors for the Planning Commission to consider in its decision making? 5. Please share your opinion on how the Planning Commission can foster involvement of the whole community in long-range planning projects. The council interviewed John Jordan Cascade and RueAnn Thomas for positions on the Toxics Board. Both candidates were asked the following questions: 1. To what extent do you think the program has benefited the community? In what ways? 2. Many manufacturers are required to file a number of environmental reports with various govern- ments. What are your views on how these reports and requirements might be combined or other- wise strengthened to reduce the burden? MINUTES-Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews October 4, 2005 Page 1 3. Do you have opinions regarding the reasons for the existence of the Toxics Program, and the true intent of the voters in enacting it? 4. Do you have opinions about the fact the program's regulations are embodied in the City Charter rather than the City Code? Mr. Poling thanked each candidate for applying for a position on a City board, commission, or committee, and indicated the council would make its appointment of successful candidates on October 24. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews October 4, 2005 Page 2 ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 5,2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman, Gary Pape. Council President George Poling called the October 5,2005, meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR BUDGET COMMITTEE The council interviewed the following candidates for positions on the Budget Committee: Sat Ganesha Khalsa, Michael Biglan, Maurice Denner, Claire Syrett, and Michael Caprai. All candidates were asked the following questions: 1. Why is it important to have a Budget Committee to review the City of Eugene's Budget? What is the appropriate role for the citizen members of the committee? 2. In your view, what are the key issues facing the City and how would your participation on the Budget Committee aid in addressing them? 3. The Budget Committee frequently receives competing funding requests from various well- intentioned, deserving City programs and outside groups. What factors do you consider prior to making funding decisions? Which factors are most influential? 4. Do you have suggestions for ways to improve citizen understanding of the City's financial condi- tions, budget priorities, and process? Mr. Poling thanked each candidate for applying for a position on a City board, commission, or committee, and indicated the council would make its appointment of successful candidates on October 24. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES-Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews October 5,2005 Page 1 (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews October 5,2005 Page 2 ATTACHMENTD MINUTES Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 6, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: David Kelly, Gary Pape, Chris Pryor. Council President George Poling called the October 6,2005, meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR BUDGET COMMITTEE The council interviewed the following candidates for positions on the Human Rights Commission: Robert Wiess, David Lottier, Rebecca Flyn, James Garcia, Matthew Johnson and Annette Leonard. All candidates were asked the following questions: 1. Tell us why you want be a Human Rights Commissioner? 2. What is the City government's role in addressing human rights? 3. What are the most important human rights issues facing the City of Eugene and what are your ideas for addressing those? 4. We recognize that many people apply to serve on the Human Rights Commission because they are passionate for a particular group or a specific issue. It is important that commissioners have the ability to work on a range of human rights issues. Assess your ability to work with others on is- sues that may not be your top concern. 5. Serving on the commission requires a significant time and energy commitment. Tell us about your ability to balance commission work with other demands in your life. Mr. Poling thanked each candidate for applying for a position on a City board, commission, or committee, and indicated the council would make its appointment of successful candidates on October 24. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES-Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews October 6, 2005 Page 1 Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews October 6, 2005 Page 2