The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 12, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 3A 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 June 25, 2008, Work Session, July 21, 2008, Public Hearing, October 13, 2008, Work Session, October 20, 2008, Public Hearing, October 22, 2008, Work Session, October 27, 2008, Work Session, October 27, 2008, City Council Meeting, October 29, 2008, Work Session, November 10, 2008, Work Session, November 10, 2008, City Council Meeting, and November 12, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. June 25, 2008, Work Session B. July 21, 2008, Public Hearing C.October 13, 2008, Work Session D.October 20, 2008, Public Hearing E.October 22, 2008, Work Session F.October 27, 2008, Work Session G.October 27, 2008, City Council Meeting H.October 29, 2008, Work Session I.November 10, 2008, Work Session J.November 10, 2008, City Council Meeting K.November 12, 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\2009 Council Agendas\M090112\S0901123A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 25, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Council President Chris Pryor called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Piercy was attending a utility conference and speaking on Eugene’s pursuit of sustainability. A. WORK SESSION: Feral Cats City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced Mary Walston, City Manager’s Office, to discuss the topic of feral cats. Ms. Walston stated that the work session was held at the request of Ms. Solomon because of the large number of feral cats in her ward and the problems they were causing. She said there were requests to include other problem animals, such as raccoons and nutria, but these animals fall under the jurisdiction of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. This could be the topic of another work session. Also, the direction to work with Lane County Animal Services (LCAS) limited this conversation to cats. She said that feral cats were defined as the offspring of abandoned cats and typically formed colonies. She said colonies continued to breed and the cats frequently had diseases that could spread to household pets. She said that LCAS had previously accepted feral cats and euthanized them, but was now working with community groups to develop a trap, neuter and return (TNR) program. She said the City operated a self-supporting spay/neuter clinic, but did not handle feral cats. She said cats had no legal status as there was no licensing program in the City or the County. She said some people had objections to a cat licensing program, or a microchip program, but there were examples of successful programs in other communities. She said the agenda packet contained information on several approaches to dealing with the problem of feral cats. Ms. Solomon said many of her constituents were concerned with the problem of feral cats. She struggled to distinguish between a feral cat and a neighbor’s cat that was a nuisance. She agreed that the community would not accept euthanizing as a solution and appreciated the information about options. She felt the TNR program had promise. Ms. Walston said she understood that LCAS was working with local veterinarians who were willing to donate their services and Greenhill Humane Society had been asked about using its spay/neuter surgery space. She introduced the Assistant Director of Lane County Department of Health and Human Services, Karen Gaffney, who was managing LCAS and available to answer questions. Ms. Solomon said she would support the City’s participation in a program but did not want the City to be the sole funding source. She wanted the City’s contribution to result in a specific number of cats that had been spayed or neutered. Regarding the 3,500 surgeries performed by the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 1 Work Session last year, she asked if those cats were all from Eugene. Ms. Walston said that was her understanding, but she would research the question. Ms. Solomon asked if someone could take their neighbor’s cat in to be spayed or neutered at the City’s clinic. Ms. Walston said a person would need to demonstrate ownership of the animal. Ms. Ortiz was in favor of a TNR program. She asked if live traps could be made available to the public. She said that feral cats presented health hazards to other animals and she would support the suggested motion. Mr. Zelenka objected to euthanizing feral cats. He was interested in a TNR program that was a cooperative effort among jurisdictions and jointly funded. He questioned opposition to microchips, which helped reunite a pet and owner. He was interested in additional information about a cat licensing program. Ms. Walston said a cat licensing program was difficult to enforce and many cats did not wear collars. She said in the City of Eugene the compliance rate for dog licensing was about 40 percent and in the County was 30 percent. She would check on cat licensing programs in other jurisdictions. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gaffney said the TNR program had existed for a long time in the community through the efforts of volunteers who worked independently to trap cats and return them. She said the County hoped to develop a larger, systemized program that would utilize volunteer veterinari- ans to perform surgeries, which would greatly reduce costs. She hoped to spay/neuter 20 cats per day when the program was in operation. The Greenhill facility would be used to perform surgeries and volunteers would assist people to trap and transport animals. She said there was a large supply of live traps available. Mr. Zelenka asked if the mobile clinic that used to visit the area and perform surgeries on feral cats still existed. Ms. Gaffney said it did, but no longer visited Lane County. She was pleased to hear that the City of Eugene was interested in participating in the TNR program. Ms. Taylor said that people might be willing to accept a cat licensing program if the revenue was used to support a spay and neuter clinic for feral and domestic cats. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a report by the end of the calendar year with recommendations and resource needs to assist local animal welfare groups to address the issue of feral cats. Ms. Solomon asked if LCAS had all of the components in place to implement a TNR program. Ms. Gaffney said it did and the new and exciting component was volunteer veterinarians to perform surgeries. She hoped to start operations on September 7, 2008. Ms. Solomon commented that the TNR program was necessary because of irresponsible pet owners and it was unfair for those owners to pass the burden of addressing the problem to the rest of the community. She hoped that people would accept responsibility when they got a pet. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Evaluation Process Alana Holmes, Human Resources, said in response to the council’s direction, recommended criteria for evaluating the Police Auditor had been developed in conjunction with the Civilian Review Board (CRB). She said one set of criteria would be used by the CRB in its evaluation of the Police Auditor and a separate, similar set was recommended for the council’s use. Police Auditor Chris Beamud said the CRB had approved the criteria and felt it was an adequate instrument for reporting to the council pursuant to the CRB’s evaluation responsibilities. Ms. Ortiz asked if the council would receive feedback from complainants in order to complete evaluation element D related to complaint intake and adjudication. Ms. Beamud said the system was currently informal, but eventually the council would receive that information. She said the sample size of complainants at this point was too small to be statistically valid. Ms. Ortiz felt that was an essential component of the evaluation in order for the council to determine if the Police Auditor was meeting the community’s expectations. Mr. Clark asked if there was a comprehensive job description for the Police Auditor beyond what was included in the ordinance. Ms. Holmes said the City had information that was developed for the recruitment brochure when Ms. Beamud was hired; that could be transposed into a more formal position description. Mr. Clark asked if the council had clearly formalized its expectations of the Police Auditor, other than in the recruitment materials. Ms. Holmes said that nothing had been formalized beyond those materials. Ms. Taylor stated that she would need more information about the Police Auditor’s activities before she would be able to complete the evaluation form. She suggested regular reports from the Police Auditor to keep the council informed. Mr. Poling agreed with the need for more feedback from complainants and that there should be a mechanism for everyone who used the system to report on their experience with it. Mr. Zelenka asked if there were formal position descriptions for the City Manager and municipal judges. Ms. Holmes said the City Manager position was defined in recruitment materials and the employment contract, the same as for the Police Auditor. She said position descriptions did not exist for municipal judges. Mr. Zelenka asked for a copy of the employment contract and recruitment brochure for the Police Auditor. He noted that Ms. Beamud’s second employment anniversary was in October and hoped that an evaluation process could be completed by then. He wanted to see the CRB evaluation before the council conducted its evaluation and agreed with other councilors that more feedback from complainants was needed in order to conduct a meaningful evaluation of the complaint intake and adjudication process. Ms. Beamud said she was developing a report for the quarter ending March 3, 2008, which incorporated statistics on the number and nature of complaints her office had received. She had not conducted a formal survey to obtain feedback from complainants, but could do that. She said there had been about 200 complaints filed since October 1, 2007. Ms. Solomon observed that 200 complaints should be sufficient for a statistically relevant evaluation. She regarded complainants as customers and wanted to know how they felt about their experience with the Police MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Auditor. She said it was essential to obtain that information in order for the council to conduct its evaluation of the Police Auditor and program. She was interested in seeing a draft survey instrument to obtain customer feedback. Ms. Bettman cautioned that complainants’ feedback would be based on their entire experience, including things over which the auditor had no control that could influence their perceptions of the system. She said a survey instrument should identify which aspects of the system were being evaluated. She said if the council wanted a formal job description for the Police Auditor, it should also have one for the City Manager. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of obtaining customer feedback, but pointed out that the information would be self- directed as people could choose whether or not to respond and that would have an influence on the overall results. He said the information would be useful, but should be considered in that context. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the performance criteria for the Police Auditor as recommended by the Civilian Review Board. Ms. Ortiz said there were certain organizational performance expectations that each City employee had to meet in addition to specific job duties. She asked if there were customer feedback mechanisms for all the services provided by the City. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones replied that a feedback mechanism existed for most of the services provided directly to the public. Ms. Ortiz said she was interested in feedback that simply indicated whether a person’s experience with the Police Auditor’s office had been positive or negative with respect to courteous and helpful treatment, not necessarily their attitude about the final outcome, as that was not something Ms. Beamud could control. Mr. Zelenka clarified that he would support a customer survey to determine how people felt about the police auditor system, but it should not be included in an evaluation of Ms. Beamud’s job performance. He asked how difficult it would be to develop position descriptions for the Police Auditor and City Manager, and how useful that would be to the council. Ms. Holmes said she could develop position descriptions from the information in the recruitment brochures. She said the value to the council could be removing the extraneous information from the recruitment materials and streamlining job requirements into a more useful format; that could be done if the council felt that would be helpful to their evaluation efforts. Mr. Clark asked if the intent of the motion was to make elements A through F the only criteria upon which the Police Auditor’s performance would be evaluated, or could other elements be added at a later point in the process. Ms. Holmes said the motion would establish the format of the evaluation document, but not limit the council’s ability to add comments. She noted the council had also discussed obtaining feedback from interested community groups as part of the evaluation process. Mr. Clark said his concern was to avoid limiting the scope of the council’s evaluation of the position and program structure. He said the evaluation did not address at this point some of the duties described in the ordinance. He also recognized that there were ongoing discussions and negotiations about the auditor’s involvement in some aspects of the investigative process. Mr. Pryor commented that councilors would have to conduct their evaluations based on the criteria to which the council had agreed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Holmes stressed the importance of the Police Auditor being aware of the council’s expectations and what she would be held accountable for. She said there were a number of job requirements in the ordinance and those could also be included in the evaluation. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to include in the evaluation any other duties included in the ordinance that were not explicit in the evaluation form. Mr. Clark explained that his intent was to assure the council was not limited in its ability to conduct a complete and thorough review. He said the CRB recommendations were good, but not complete. He was not interested in imposing any expectations that were not part of the ordinance. Ms. Bettman said she did not understand the amendment as this or any future council could do exactly what it had a majority to do. She said the council could bring anything it wished forward in an evaluation. She felt the recommended criteria covered every aspect of the auditor’s role and authority. Her concern was how to evaluate the program and cooperation between it and other departments. She directed Mr. Clark’s attention to the Police Commission report, which described the police auditor model. She saw consistency between the methodologies used to evaluate the Police Auditor and municipal judges. Mr. Pryor said he could support the amendment, but it raised the larger issue of the difficulty of being a part- time supervisor for a full-time employee and trying to develop a mechanism where casual supervision could be translated into a meaningful evaluation. He said as council president, he probably had the most frequent contact with Ms. Beamud, but did not feel he was able to provide the level of supervision she deserved. He was not certain that adding more criteria would be helpful, given the minimum amount of supervision the council provided. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments. His intent was to include some missing items in the evaluation form, such as customer feedback, accuracy of complaint classification, review of investigations and adjudica- tion recommendations. Mr. Zelenka remarked that an evaluation process should incorporate multiple inputs, one of which was the evaluation form. He said the elements in the form were guidelines to trigger the council’s thinking on that topic area and the form should be regarded as a tool in the evaluation process, but did not limit the scope of the council’s review. Ms. Taylor felt the evaluation form was already complete and the amendment unnecessary. She said the problem was obtaining the knowledge necessary to use the form effectively. She wanted frequent reports and conversations with the Police Auditor as it was the responsibility of the entire council to provide supervision. Ms. Bettman stated that the Police Auditor was not an employee meant to be micromanaged; the level of supervision should be comparable to that of the council’s other employees. She said the position was granted considerable autonomy in carrying out the provisions in the ordinance. She would not support the amendment after hearing comments from Mr. Clark and Mr. Pryor that attempted to resurrect issues already settled by the voters. She said the evaluation form was a tool and part of a larger evaluation predicated on the success of processing complaints. She hoped that someone would offer a friendly amendment to seek feedback from the Police Auditor’s employees. Mr. Zelenka stated that discussion of the role of the Police Auditor should be based on a job description, which could be used as an evaluation tool. He did not see the need for the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 5 Work Session City Attorney Glenn Klein commented that that he was not certain how the recommended evaluation form would be revised based on the language of Mr. Clark’s amendment. He said if the amendment was passed, more discussion by the council would be required to clarify the specific revisions. He said Mr. Clark’s concern that the main motion as stated would exclude items in the ordinance from the council’s evaluation could be addressed by specifying that the council was adopting the CRB-recommended forms, not the criteria. That would allow the council to discuss the items in the ordinance within the context of the evaluation forms. Mr. Clark changed his motion to a friendly amendment to the main motion by insert- ing the word “tool” following “performance criteria.” Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman restated her motion as amended: I move to adopt the recommended per- formance criteria tool for the Police Auditor as recommended by the CRB. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the motion by adding the phrase: including the institution of a process requesting feedback from complainants. Mr. Poling felt that a process could be developed that would obtain information from complainants about specific aspects of the Police Auditor’s performance and not the entire process. He felt the more information the council had, the better it would be able to fairly evaluate Ms. Beamud’s performance. Mr. Zelenka asked if Mr. Poling’s intent was to add the survey as a formal part of the evaluation. Mr. Poling said he wanted to assure that there was a process for obtaining information from complainants and providing it to the council to be considered during the evaluation. Mr. Zelenka cautioned that it was inappropriate to use a complainant feedback survey in the context of an evaluation because it would include feedback from people who were angry about the entire process. He said the survey process was unscientific and tainted by self-selection and the outcome of the process. Ms. Ortiz said she would prefer to amend the motion to assure the evaluation process was not limited to the forms. Her concern with Mr. Poling’s amendment was that complainants could not be required to provide feedback and if only a few responded, she was not certain how that would help the council provide further direction to Ms. Beamud, although she would want to see it. She did not want the council to begin micro- managing its employees. Ms. Bettman asserted that the feedback form was not a formal survey and should not be part of a formal evaluation process. She said the Police Auditor provided quarterly reports to the council, which would include complainant feedback, and she would not support the amendment. Mr. Pryor said his concern was with being informative, rather than directive. He agreed there were other elements that the council needed to consider in its evaluation, but it should be explicit about what those were so Ms. Beamud would clearly understand the council’s expectations. He felt the survey could inform the evaluation, but should not be a formal part of it. He thought the council needed further discussion to develop a comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation process. Mr. Clark said the council’s job was to provide clarity to Ms. Beamud in terms of expectations and feedback. He agreed that the council should create a more thorough job description for the Police Auditor to avoid future MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 6 Work Session misunderstandings about expectations. He said the Police Auditor’s position was established to provide trust within the community and while the survey was not scientific, it would help the council understand the extent to which that was happening. He said the feedback might be more reflective of the overall system, but could also provide pertinent information about Ms. Beamud’s performance that the council should have. Mr. Zelenka said he did not want to support the amendment because it overlapped with programmatic evaluation. He suggested that Mr. Poling withdraw his motion and councilors could indicate if they agreed that the evaluation process would consider, but not be limited to, the performance criteria tool recommended by the CRB, a self-evaluation from Ms. Beamud, the council’s experience of the auditor’s work over the past year, a survey of Police Auditor employees, the job description to be developed, the complainant survey and other inputs. He said the list was inclusive, not exclusive. Mr. Poling withdrew his motion. Mr. Pryor determined that with the exception of Ms. Bettman, councilors were in agreement with Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion. Ms. Bettman hoped that developing a job description for the Police Auditor was not an attempt to rewrite the role and authorities granted to the auditor via the ordinance, which she felt constituted a definitive job description. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include in the evaluation the CRB’s evaluation form from employees of the Police Auditor. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Zelenka explained he voted against the motion because that item was included in the list of items he had suggested and to which other councilors had agreed. He would support the main motion, augmented with councilors’ concurrence on the other elements he had suggested. Ms. Ortiz said she did not support the motion because her expectation was that Ms. Holmes would develop materials for the council based on what was already in the ordinance. She would support doing the same thing for the City Manager. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 7 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 21, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption and Amending Sections 2,945 and 9.947 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Jon Ruiz invited questions. Councilor Bettman determined from City Manager Ruiz a work session on the agenda topic could be scheduled if the council so desired. At Councilor Bettman’s request, the council agreed to schedule a work session. City Manager Ruiz indicated it was possible a work session could be scheduled on August 13. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to take the information from the hearing, questions, and comments from the council and consider the MUPTE ordinance and criteria at a work session on August 13. Councilor Ortiz supported the motion due to the complexity of the issue. Councilor Poling did not support the motion as the council had yet to hold the public hearing. Councilor Solomon arrived. The motion was clarified for the benefit of Councilor Solomon. The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting no. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public hearing and opened the public hearing. Terry Connelly , representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette Street, said the chamber supported the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) as a tool to attract more investment in housing in and near downtown. The chamber felt the program was having a positive effect in creating more housing units. He considered MUPTE both an incentive and a tool for the City to realize its planning goals, particularly those related to more compact urban growth and support for multi-modal modes of transportation. He did not want to see the MUPTE boundary reduced in size and suggested there might be some places where it was appropriate to expand it. In regard to the selection criteria, he suggested they be clearly spelled out for both the applicant and the City to give applicants more predictability in regard to City decision-making. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Ginger Newman , 3285 Ligmont Drive, said the MUPTE program allowed a developer to build better design into a process. She described the process a developer must go through to use the MUPTE, and said that it took three to five years to complete a project. During the time the MUPTE had been in place the council had begun to question the MUPTE boundaries, which had a negative impact on developers. She suggested better projects with higher quality resulted in higher property taxes. She said buildings would have a longer life, and their appearance would be enhanced and there would be more open space and parking. She suggested the boundaries be left alone for a five- year period to see how the program worked, which would also give developers time to bring projects to market. Rents could be lower because of the property tax exemption. Dan Neal encouraged the council to expand the MUPTE program into the Trainsong area as it was a powerful tool for the development of multi-family structures. He said taking the West University area out of the boundaries was a mistake. He said that by the twelfth year the City would break even and by the fifteenth year it would collect twice the taxes it would have otherwise, with a commensurate effect after 20 years. He said that in some cases, councilors were correct that projects would be built; however, the council could use MUPTE to encourage developers to invest in sustainability improvements in their developments. He suggested that the result would be a win-win situation for the City and the developer. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. B. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibition of Extreme Fighting; Repealing Section 4.740 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code Keli Osborn of the Planning and Development Department was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy noted that no one was present to speak, and opened and closed the public hearing. C. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zones; and Adding Sections 4.873, 4.874, 4.875, 8.876, 4.877, and 4.878 to Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Ruiz invited questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Tom English , 2535 Fairmount Boulevard, indicated he served as a pastor and was concerned about the ordinance. He said the poor and dispossessed ended up on his church’s property and it attempted to deal with them in a loving and kind way. He did not think the ordinance would be enforceable. He preferred to see the money used for enforcement. He pointed out there was no room at the jail for the individuals who would be arrested. He spoke of the lack of social services and resources to serve those in need. He suggested the ordinance was a result of fear. Although he understood the frustration, he thought the ordinance was the wrong policy. th Deb Frisch , 2003 West 11 Avenue, offered general criticism of the police and district attorney and sarcastically indicated her support for the ordinance. John Raul , 2590 Vista, said the situation on the street downtown was deteriorating. He described the situation near his business. He was appalled that the city center was not a place where everyone felt welcome. He thought it unfortunate that there was a mix of activities involving adolescents that the City enabled through its provision of MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing street furniture which street people claimed for their own. He supported a vital mix of people and was not interested in moving to a mall. He wanted to be part of that mix but thought the City needed to rediscover a balance. He recommended it bring more positive activities and communicate a better message to those who go downtown and do not feel welcome. He knew of parents who had to ship their children out of town when they found them in the downtown scene. Misha Seymour , 1313 Lincoln Street, #307, opposed the ordinance. He criticized the ordinance as mean-spirited and criticized the City for restricting public speech and free assembly at the Eugene Library and Kesey Square. He thought the City could do better and should treat everyone with respect. He believed the ordinance was illegal. He called for a cessation of tax breaks and a society for the people. Bob Cassidy recommended that the council consider adding a sunset clause to the ordinance. Henry Luvert spoke in support of the ordinance because he had viewed video tapes from a business downtown that showed youth defecating and urinating on the business front, which was owned by a minority business person. He had spoken about the topic to the Chief of Police, who indicated budget constraints prevented anything from being done. Mr. Luvert thought urination in public places was against the law. He said the City did not have the resources to enforce the laws already on the books and he questioned how the City would enforce the ordinance being proposed. He considered it appeasement and called for something that worked. He said that events had escalated because people had now started breaking windows. He said that someone would get hurt if that was allowed to happen. He noted the pit across from the library and suggested that the council consider a community center downtown to give youth something to do other than urinating on people’s property. Betty Snowden , 125 West Broadway, noted some of the terrible things that she had been called, and said there was nothing courteous about being stalked and it had been happening for 17 years. She did not think it was courteous to be threatened. She said she had more than 50 video surveillance tapes and had to view people’s private parts and have her windows broken out. Her customers were threatened and cursed while the City talked about its downtown core. She said that such behavior was a daily thing and it was time for it to stop and for the city to be a city that loved all people. She said the City needed enough police to protect all its citizens. She gave the council an F for its actions downtown and said the ordinance was needed. She described the abuse she experienced daily in her business downtown. She said if the council did not do something, someone would get hurt. Cassandra Snowden , 125 West Broadway, said she was tired of finding vomit in her doorway and racial slurs on her doors. Her family’s rights were being violated on a daily basis and then they were told “we’re working on it.” She said that the behavior was very hurtful and constant. She thought an ordinance for repeat offenders would help because if those committing the offenses knew nothing would be done to them, they would continue to harass people. Arthur McCombs opposed the ordinance. He lived downtown and thought something needed to be done about crime downtown. He had been homeless due to his illness but was sympathetic to the business community and crime victims. He had benefited from his ability to live at First Christian Church because of the City’s programming and cleaned the parking lot and did graffiti removal. He also donated to the church and considered himself part of the solution and not part of the problem. He was concerned about the fact he both smoked marijuana and dumpster- dived and, if he was caught, he would not be allowed to do his banking, shopping, seek drug treatment at urgent care, or do anything else downtown. Kaz Ovessi , a downtown business owner, said no one distinguished between crime, poverty, and homelessness. They could not be mixed together or no problems would be solved. He felt that healthy retail depended on synergy. He did not think that the Centre Court building would realize good retail possibilities. There was not a healthy scene around his business, and that was frustrating. He owned his own building or otherwise would have moved. He saw the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing problems day in and day out and it affected his psyche. In regard to Kesey Square, he asked that the council address the problem and send out an RFP to transform the space or allow the private sector to do something. The community needed to reclaim its downtown. Lloyd Lewis , a downtown business owner, said his business suffered from the same problems as other businesses. The graffiti was down but urination was up. He had seen both men and women squat and defecate between buildings. A certain level of tolerance had built up and everyone assumed these actions were okay. He had put up signs that had not prevented people from urinating on the back door of his business. Feedback he heard indicated it was an ongoing problem; some designers had called to request access through the rear of his business to avoid having to go through the panhandlers and alcoholics in front. He wanted to be downtown but did not want to put up with the situation much longer. He did not know if the ordinance was the answer, but anything the council could do that called on those breaking the law to be punished could not have a negative impact. He also advocated for downtown housing as a way to make people feel safer. He said that his employees did not confront downtown youth because they were afraid of window breakage, and commended the DEI guides for the work they did in getting youth to move on. Claudia Arenda supported the ordinance. She said she was a single mother and she feared for her daughter’s safety and her own safety downtown. She frequently cleaned graffiti off walls and witnessed people urinating close up. She wanted a safer environment for everyone downtown. She loved her work and did not want to leave it. Dan Neal , public defender for the Eugene Municipal Court, was sympathetic to the stories he heard and had difficulty understanding why people were not being prosecuted for their activities on the mall. He asked how well calculated the ordinance was to solve the problem; he did not think it would. He thought the City needed to prosecute people arrested for crimes on the mall. He had defended people for misdemeanor charges that paled in comparison to what he was hearing tonight. He suggested an exclusion order would not help and if a person was arrested for violating an exclusion order that person would likely be released from jail. He suggested that an effective step to reduce crime downtown would be more development. He was optimistic in that regard. In the meantime, he feared passage of the ordinance would create a new class of offenders who would not spend time in jail. He pointed out that every judge had the power to exclude people from the mall. He said the ordinance was another tool but it was less effective as it created more problems and added to the cost of public safety. rd Cathy Sigmund , 2545 West 23 Avenue, owned a business at 764 Lincoln Street. She said the downtown area had deteriorated rapidly and was now owned by street gangs and those with no purpose. They harassed her customers and her employees had to be walked to their cars. She acknowledged the ordinance was not perfect but thanked councilors Ortiz and Clark for sponsoring it. She thought it carried a message of hope to downtown business owners. She recalled a vibrant downtown and said she continued to hold out because she hoped it would be vibrant again. She said that successful proposals were inevitably delayed and fell by the wayside. She did not think that the council would get people to live downtown unless they felt safe and protected. She urged the council to act on the ordinance. Ms. Sigmund said she trusted the discretion of the young police officers she saw near her business and admired them and was amazed the City could still get young people who wanted to be officers. Claire Syrett , representing the American Civil Liberties Union, opposed the proposed ordinance. She said the ACLU opposed exclusion zones imposed through an administrative or civil procedure aimed at criminal conduct. She said the ACLU’s opposition was based on policy concerns rather than a belief such ordinances were inherently unconstitutional. She said the ACLU believed restrictions on one’s movements should be imposed only by a judge in the context of a criminal proceeding, which has requirements for legal representation. The ACLU believed the ordinance would merely shift the problems being experienced downtown to another area of town and give too much discretion to police officers to issue show cause orders. She called for an ordinance that authorized a judge to impose MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing an exclusion order on a person as a condition of release or probation, ensuring that they would have legal representa- tion. Ms. Syrett said the ACLU had great sympathy for those living and working downtown who faced harassment and suffered from repeated criminal acts. She appreciated the council’s attempt to find a solution. She recognized that the criminal justice system was in crisis, but still believed it was best to employ a law-enforcement based approach to problems in the downtown core. She expressed appreciation to councilors Clark and Ortiz for including the ACLU in the dialogue and looked forward to crafting a solution. Tom Kaymas , Lincoln Street, said criminal conduct was a constant downtown. There needed to be individual accountability, and he hoped that enforcement of the ordinance would do that. He did not know if it would work. He spent thousands of dollars on repair and security. He said security people spent hours chasing people away from businesses and from shooting up. Mr. Kaymas said that every year something like the ordinance was suggested, and if this ordinance would not work, what would? He said that when the police were moved from Broadway, all the street people moved back. He feared retribution from street people for his customers and himself. He noted that the developer recently selected by the City for a downtown redevelopment project had also stated that for the project to succeed, downtown security must be improved. He suggested that taxes be raised on all the vacant buildings downtown to pay the costs of increased security. David Hauser , 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, the new contract administrator for DEI, said that DEI was the City’s partner in creating a safe, vibrant community. He thanked councilors Ortiz and Clark for their interest in the ordinance. He had spoken to the guides about the downtown environment, and they confirmed the stories the council heard at the hearing. He invited each councilor to walk with the guides and view what people were talking about. He said that he had an optimistic view of the future of downtown; there were problems that required more resources and tools. He said that the ordinance was not perfect but it was a tool that deserved a chance to succeed. He said that the increase in the number of guides and their hours, in combination with the ordinance, could make a difference in how downtown felt to those with businesses and the customers they served. Excluding repeat offenders for 90 days seemed like a modest sanction. George Brown , a downtown business owner and incoming City Councilor, was sympathetic to the intentions of the ordinance and shared the frustration of downtown business owners as a business owner himself. However, he believed the ordinance was an unnecessary complication that would not solve any problems. It required an enhanced police presence for enforcement. The resulting citations and arrests would clog the court system and would be unlikely to result in jail time for offenders. He suggested that the police presence downtown be increased with more beat officers and hours added at night. He recommended that community policing be instituted downtown as everyone knew that was the answer. Tasha Brubaker Garrison , understood the need to address the issues of the downtown area, but was concerned about the sweeping nature of the ordinance and its impact on the homeless and dispossessed. She thought people made good points about community policing and increased resources. She recommended the council think creatively and disentangle the different threads of the issue. She proposed solutions such as self-cleaning toilets. She recommended that crimes be addressed right away. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked for council comments and questions. Councilor Clark said his intention was to specifically address those with a proven record of bad behavior with a way to address the bad behavior. He did not propose to exclude people on the basis of how they looked. Councilor Clark understood the ACLU’s concerns and was willing to consider some modifications. He said there was no question the City needed to begin to act differently about its downtown if it wanted it to succeed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Ruiz said the council was scheduled to take action on the ordinance on August 11, 2008. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the testimony. She agreed that the problem was serious and believed the behaviors needed to be addressed, but felt the ordinance was too sweeping. Councilor Bettman asked if there were public restrooms available when the library was closed and, if not, what that would cost to provide. Councilor Bettman wanted a calculation of the increase in costs associated with the ordinance, if adopted, and then the council could discuss how to spend those resources to target the issues. She was very concerned about the public urination problem and thought that should be a fairly serious criminal offense. She wanted to know how the police responded to this because children could be exposed to the sight. She said that many issues were bundled into the issue of downtown viability. She was willing to look at an exclusion ordinance which would be only for criminal convictions. She said currently, children or teenagers downtown could be excluded simply because they were minors and were downtown. She wanted a narrowed list of violations. Councilor Bettman had the same issue in regard to enforceability, particularly if the jail was full. She asked why community service and being assigned to the road crew were not considered viable options. Councilor Ortiz said that Councilor Clark was a business person downtown and he had approached her about the potential of an exclusion zone. She said her support would depend on whether it addressed criminal issues. She was challenged by the comments made about individuals as the focus was on behavior. She wanted to know why the people downtown were there. While Councilor Ortiz did not live or work downtown, she believed it was a challeng- ing situation for those who did. She did not want to hear people say they were moving away from downtown because of the problems they experienced. She wanted downtown to be vibrant for everyone. Councilor Taylor thanked all those who spoke. She had been moved by the comments of Mr. English. She was also appalled at the things that happened to Ms. Snowden but she thought there were other ways to address them. She thought an exclusion ordinance would move the problem to another place. If the bad element was not downtown, it would be some other place. She said that much of what was discussed was already illegal, such as breaking windows. She recommended that those in support of the ordinance talk to Mr. Neal about other approaches. She supported exclusion as part of probation but said that people have to go somewhere. Councilor Taylor supported a youth center downtown because sometimes people did not have another place to be. She determined from City Attorney Emily Jerome that it is already illegal to break windows and vomit in people’s doorways. Councilor Pryor asked how many people showed up in court after being cited. He asked if an individual could be convicted in absentia to trigger the exclusion. Ms. Jerome said the ordinance provided an automatic 90-day exclusion if one failed to appear for a show-cause hearing within five to 14 days. Councilor Pryor said the ordinance raised the classic conflict between liberty and community. It appeared that community safety and individual rights were in conflict, so the council was trying to find the fairest balance to avoid impinging on liberty while doing general community good. He said that raised the question of what constituted an offensive behavior, and he called for more discussion of that topic. Councilor Pryor then spoke to the issue of enforceability and said he was concerned about creating a law the City could not enforce. He was interested in knowing more about the City’s options. Mr. Pryor suggested that in terms of outcomes, it would not be progress to just move the problems downtown to some other location. Councilor Zelenka sympathized with the victims of the behaviors mentioned. He wanted to address the problem with something that worked. He was also concerned about enforceability and agreed with Councilor Bettman that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing ordinance was too sweeping. He supported exclusions as part of the criminal justice system. He suggested that probation and sentencing could have tougher consequences. He encouraged those who had experienced problems to contact the District Attorney. Councilor Solomon could not imagine the council would do less than what was proposed. The council discussed how to improve downtown continually and could not hope that private development alone would accomplish that. Public safety was the City’s job, and the City needed to address the situation and improve safety downtown to facilitate development. She suggested that Mr. Davis could have concluded his remarks by saying “or why are you here?” in regard to the council. She hoped it accepted the challenge. Councilor Clark said he worked downtown and he was downtown everyday. He witnessed the behaviors mentioned everyday. The problem was so real that if there was only one staff person at the Human Rights Center or Police Auditor’s Office, their policy was to lock the door. He thought that spoke volumes about the problem. He wanted those who victimized other people to be removed from the opportunity to do it again. He pointed out that people received restraining orders all the time, and he wanted to do something similar to protect the victim from those who demonstrated a desire to victimize others. He was willing to make changes, but considered the ordinance to be a first step. Councilor Bettman wanted to see text that instituted the exclusion after the commission of the crime, and a tiered approach to the list provided with more description so the council could draw a threshold. She was looking for a more focused and targeted ordinance which she hoped would cost less money and be more effective. Councilor Bettman was astounded to hear the extent to which criminal activity was not being addressed downtown. She said people were hearing about a lack of resources, and every year since she had joined the council the City had increased its funding for public safety and in past years had targeted the downtown area, and surrounding areas, with extra police resources. She asked where that money had gone and why the crimes were not being prosecuted. She asked the City Manager to address why the City kept putting resources into the Police Department but continued to hear the mantra of “insufficient resources.” Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the comments of those who spoke and for their concern for the rights of people working and visiting downtown. She said the City had been working on the issue for many years and needed to do something different and better. The situation was being exacerbated by the County’s funding issues. She appreciated the testimony about separating crime from poverty. She said the council had asked for increased police oversight downtown with special controls. She had problems about treating people as guilty before they were found guilty. She wanted miscreants to know the City was serious. Mayor Piercy said that the council was being asked to step up to the problem and take leadership. She asked the City Manager and staff to work with the council on the issue so it could do things better and differently. She noted there was a youth center downtown, but she suggested it was too small and could serve as a seed for the future. D. PUBLIC HEARING: th An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Villard Alley Right-of-Way between East 13 Avenue and East th 15 Avenue; and th An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of East 13 Avenue Right-of-Way East of its Intersection with Franklin Boulevard City Attorney Emily Jerome provided the staff presentation, noting the request from the University of Oregon (UO) th that the City vacate a segment of Villard Alley and a segment of East 13 Avenue. She said the council would MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing consider separate ordinances for the two vacations in the future, but would hold a combined hearing at this time. She noted the single criterion, which was whether the proposed vacations were in the public interest. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules of the hearing, which was quasi-judicial. She called for ex parte contacts on the part of the council. She first noted the contacts she had received through e-mails, letters, and in meetings with staff from the University of Oregon, which had advocated for the need for the vacation to get the arena built, as well as from neighborhood organizations asking that their concerns be addressed. She said she had submitted all e-mails and letters into the public record. Ms. Jerome clarified that anything already in the record was not an ex parte contact. Mr. Clark said he also received e-mails regarding the issue and had a meeting with UO Community Director Greg Rikhoff, who discussed the necessity of the vacations and the UO’s work with the neighborhoods. To the best of his knowledge, all that information was in the record. Councilor Bettman said she received no e-mails addressed solely to her in regard to the issue. She believed those submitted to the council had been placed in the public record and she had not read them. She had met with Mr. Rikhoff to discuss general community-University-City relationships, and during that meeting Mr. Rikhoff had mentioned the money deposited for the right-of-way, at which time she informed him that was an ex parte contact. Councilor Zelenka had received the same e-mails as other councilors but had not yet read them. He had participated in the UO-Neighborhood Liaison Committee meetings on several occasions to discuss issues related to the impact of the arena but the vacation was not discussed. Councilor Zelenka then reviewed a lengthy list of meetings that he had attended during which the vacation was not discussed or at which he halted discussion when the topic was broached. In addition, Councilor Zelenka noted he lived near the site of the proposed arena, but believed he could make a fair impartial decision. Councilor Poling noted his own discussions with Mr. Rikhoff regarding University-neighborhood issues. He had also received the same e-mails mentioned by other councilors but had not read them. He indicated he would have to leave the meeting at 10:00 p.m. and would review the record if the meeting went beyond that time. Councilor Pryor had the same declarations as other councilors, including a meeting with Mr. Rikhoff to discuss UO- neighborhood issues. He indicated he believed he could be fair and objective. Councilor Taylor had the same declarations as other councilors, including a meeting with Mr. Rikhoff during which the proposed arena and vacations were not discussed. Councilor Ortiz had the same declarations as other councilors, including a meeting with Mr. Rikhoff. People had attempted to mention the issue to her but she stopped them. Councilor Ortiz had no ex parte contacts to declare. She believed she could be fair and objective. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules for the public hearing. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. She first called on those in support of the application. David Frohnmayer , President of the University of Oregon, represented the applicant. He was also a resident of the neighborhood near the arena. He spoke in support of the two vacation requests and asked the council to approve the vacations before its summer recess. He said the arena was a thoughtful and important community project. The replacement of MacArthur Court was imperative. He said the UO had responded to the concerns expressed by the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing public, particularly those of the neighbors. President Frohnmayer said the project had the promise of bringing a substantial expenditure of funds and employment to the area, which had suffered from recession in the past. The bonds to support the arena had been sold and the money was in the bank. He said a conservative economic multiplier indicated that the project would generate $300 million in the community over the next 20 months. The alley vacation was crucial to the arena project. He noted the UO owned the land around the project site and the alley in question had been out of public use for some time. He said a decision was needed soon so the carefully planned construction schedule was not disrupted. President Frohnmayer noted the other approvals that preceded the request. He noted the work the UO had done with the neighbors, and agreed with them that the funding from the vacations should be used to mitigate the impact of the arena. th Deborah Frisch , 3003 West 11 Avenue, expressed support for the proposals. She acknowledged her opposition to spending money on UO sports facilities and in particular the arena. She noted that the Mayor had responded to concerns expressed about the public process related to the arena expressed by Commissioner Faye Stewart with what Ms. Frisch considered an insulting form letter because of the predevelopment meeting held between City and University representatives regarding the UO’s arena application. She questioned the cost of that. Ms. Frisch noted that a minority of Oregon legislators had opposed the arena and speculated on how many residents opposed the arena or preferred that the UO do something else with the property it owned on Franklin Boulevard. She asserted that the UO and City had “thwarted public participation.” Genie Staton , 2216 Lakeview Drive, supported the UO proposal. She said the new arena would create local jobs and boost the local economy. She said her company, Staton Companies, was one of the first local companies to benefit from the project when it was hired to do environmental work on the site. She noted that 99.5 percent of the materials from the project site were recycled. She briefly described her company’s employee base, location, and type of customers served. She commended the arena as a great project. Ms. Staton said those in the local construction industry were concerned about the next few years given the completion of the RiverBend campus and fact the residential market was in shambles. Construction delays were costly because the cost of supplies was rising daily. She said the UO was ready to build. She hoped the council would schedule its vote soon and vote to support the project. Mike Schwartz , 2390 Lariat Drive, hoped the council scheduled a vote before break. He discussed the impact of a delay and its impact on the community. He said the UO was ready to build and if forced to delay it would increase the cost of materials and could increase the cost of ticket prices. The cost of delaying the project would be $10 million for one year. He recalled his service on the Lane County Auditorium Association, which led to the passage of the funding needed for the Hult Center; he further recalled that the cost of that structure went from $15 to $23 million in the seven years it took to bring the issue to the ballot. He asked the council to consider mixed opportunities from past years, when council delays caused projects such as McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, PeaceHealth, and Whole Foods to be dropped, and jobs to be lost. He noted the lost jobs in the community that had occurred recently, and called on the council to take advantage of the opportunity created by the proposal. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, believed that the arena was a good project that could be successfully mitigated. For that reason, he believed the alley vacation was in the public interest. He pointed out the council could approve the vacation with monetary conditions. He acknowledged that the money from the sale of the vacations was to be used for the good of all Eugene, and he knew there were many needs, but he implored the council to consider the impacts of the project on the Fairmount neighbors and use some of the money from the project to mitigate its impact. He suggested the money could be used to improve local streets which he speculated would be affected by the project. Mr. Barofsky also suggested the council consider the property removed from the City’s tax rolls as a result of the project and attempt to recover it through one of the conditions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing Steve McBride , 3810 Colony Oaks Drive, Associate Athletic Director of the U of O, shared some information about the UO’s successes in regard to event transportation management at Mac Court, Autzen Stadium, and the 2008 Olympic Trials, which involved increased alternative mode use and very high levels of transit use. He committed to using that experience and to engaging the neighbors to create a plan that addressed their concerns when the new arena was in place. Betty Snowden , 125 West Broadway, supported the proposed vacations. She asked the council to hold the vote in a timely way as the UO was ready to build. MacArthur Court needed to be replaced as it was old and expensive to maintain. She thought the new arena would be a community asset that created new jobs and would boost the local economy. She pointed out that no taxpayer money was being used to fund the arena. The arena would be LEED- certified, and she pointed out “we’re very big on that.” The arena would be used for many community purposes, increase the UO’s profile, benefit the academic mission, and attract more students. She said the UO would be winning championships. Ms. Snowden said “Go Ducks!” Marvin Roevell , 2924 Adams Street, hoped the council voted to support the vacations soon. He said several members of his family had attended the UO and the university meant a lot to his family. He considered the UO and the arena to be a sustainable business. He said he owned a multi-generational company that included his son and niece and the arena would benefit small businesses such as his. He said that the arena proposal was not just about sports and commencements, it was about sustainable business. Vin Lannana , a resident of the Fairmount Neighborhood and the Associate Director of Athletics, thanked the council, Mayor, and staff for the successful collaboration between the UO and City during the recent Olympic Trials, which were a success due to that collaboration. He said much trepidation had existed around the trials in regard to parking and accommodations, but community confidence made it a success. He thought a delay on the vote would be “a crime,” as much time and energy had gone into the proposal before the council. He said that the arena would be a spectacular community addition. He supported a council vote prior to the council recess. Tom Kammas , a local business owner, urged the council to vote on the arena right away to set a precedent and demonstrate to businesses, developers, and other employers who want to come to Eugene that it was possible to work with the City. Rick Satre , Satre Associates, 101 East Broadway, reviewed the applicable criterion, that of the benefit to the public. He suggested the council ask if the two right-of-way segments were needed by the public. He thought the council could demonstrate that the public interest was served both in regard to transportation access and emergency services and utility access. In regard to transportation access and emergency services, Mr. Satre noted that the City’s Public Works Department had stated that the vacations would not compromise public safety or services. The vehicular th access previously provided by East 13 Avenue was to businesses no longer there, and the applicant was proposing a blanket pedestrian access over the alley to improve existing pedestrian access. In regard to the alley, the businesses that used the alley in the past would all soon be gone, and abutting tax lots consolidated, leaving no reason for the alley and preserving the public interest. In regard to utilities, Mr. Satre said that the affected utility providers provided letters of concurrence for the vacation. Greg Rikhoff , UO Director of Community Relations, expressed the UO’s support for collaboration with the neighborhood. He described the UO’s engagement with the neighborhood association and its establishment of the Neighborhood Arena Liaison Committee in February 2008, to discuss issues related to the arena impact. The committee had made progress toward agreements that would help inform the conditional use process (CUP) and provide additional neighborhood protection. The UO was committed to ongoing dialogue with the neighbors for improved, refined solutions over time. He said the process did not end with those processes and he was confident collaborative solutions would be found to issues related to the arena’s impact. He said there was not consensus on all MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 10 Public Hearing issues, but dialogue would continue and the result would be a better product. He asked the council to support the vacations. He indicated the UO’s support for the neighborhood suggestion that the money from the sale of the vacation be used on mitigating the arena’s impacts. He pointed out that the arena would also be used for volleyball, and many people, not just basketball fans, would enjoy it. A. D. Smith , 1546 Erie Lane, former Oregon basketball player, expressed his support for the arena. In general, Mr. Smith believed that public financing of arenas was a bad idea because the cost outweighed the positive aspects. In this case, he thought the UO was in a unique situation. He believed that the UO had done its homework in regard to the arena and was not asking the City to pay for the arena; it had a range of donors, large and small, giving for the arena. He said the UO was asking the City for its support for something that benefited businesses and the commu- nity. As a 20-year resident, he supported that. Mr. Smith saw the UO as a partner to Eugene. He did not think the process should be compromised, but he thought the council should facilitate the process for the UO. Bob Jensen , 86635 Pine Grove Road, called on the business community to speak with a voice of determination and resolve. He said he was a former business owner downtown and the downtown had lacked such a voice and many of the issues he faced continued to exist. He had since moved his business to Villard Street near the location of the new arena. He said this was an opportunity for the council to speak to the business community and say it was interested in doing business and interested in the welfare of the business community. The business community needed support from the council. He asked the council to set a tone that it cared about business and let it be heard throughout Eugene. He thought the arena was something to be championed, not merely supported, as it would be a state-of-the- art facility and an opportunity for the community to shine like it had at the Olympics Trials. Bev Smith , 2150 Onyx Street, a former UO student and currently the coach of the UO women’s basketball team, supported the street vacation and asked the council to cast a vote before the summer recess. She said that Mac Court was a wonderful place on game night, but the biggest reason was the people of Eugene, who could be moved into the new facility. She said George Schroeder of The Register-Guard had given the community a bird’s eye view of the underside of Mac Court, which was a “grand old dame” loved by many but which was also an aging facility in need of replacement. She shared information about the women’s locker rooms at Mac Court to illustrate the inconvenience of the facilities. She said student athletes did not complain because of their love of the UO and Eugene community. Ms. Smith asked the council to support the alley vacation so fans could enjoy the new facility and student athletes could continue to have a great experience. Ms. Smith said “Go Ducks!” Alice Plymel , 1887 Fircrest Drive, a long-time patron of women’s basketball at Mac Court, spoke to the difficulty of being a disabled fan at both women and men’s home games at the current arena in terms of parking and access to seating. She asked the council to approve the alley vacation th Elise Ironmonger , 1425 East 20 Avenue, a student athlete, spoke of the positive and energetic environment at Mac Court but said that the facility was so old it was sometime dangerous and needed to be replaced. She said students loved it but knew it needed to be replaced and the council could help make that happen. She spoke of the birds that lived in Mac Court and sometimes dropped onto the court. She agreed with Ms. Smith’s remarks about the condition of the existing locker room facilities and said that, particularly when compared to other Pac 10 facilities, they were inadequate. She said a new arena would mean functioning locker rooms for both the home and visiting teams. She asked the council to approve the proposed vacations. David Hauser , 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said that these were exciting times for Eugene because of the Olympic Trials and the new regional hospital. Many legacy projects had been built because of vision and hard work and collaboration. He suggested the arena was another such legacy project. It would enhance the entrances to the UO and the community and provide a significant economic benefit at a time of economic unease. He said that over the last decade, several construction projects helped to provide family MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 11 Public Hearing wage jobs for about 2,000 people working in the industry, with average wages of $40,000 yearly, contrasted to the local average wage of $31,000 yearly. In the long-term the arena would provide a great venue for events and bring money in from out of town. Mr. Hauser pointed out the arena would depend on alternative modes of transportation and would be another LEED-certified building. On behalf of the chamber, he supported the project and urged the City Council to continue to be a collaborative partner with the UO and act in a timely manner. Mayor Piercy then called on those who were neutral in regard to the application. Art Paz , 86950 Cedar Flat Road, suggested the council consider the public realm and the need to preserve an interface between the building and the general public. He believed that the public realm in any great city is a dedication to the public in a way that serves all the public. He recalled the public input associated with the Franklin Boulevard project and asserted that the public had difficulty in finding out how the UO planned to preserve the infrastructure between the arena and the boulevard. He called on the council to hold a workshop to find out how that could occur. Jay Purcell , 1648 Orchard Alley, suggested the southern portion of the alley proposed for vacation should remain th open for fire, pedestrian, and bicycle access. In regard to 13 Avenue, he questioned whether the design in place was sufficiently solid to justify giving up the public right-of-way and the City’s ability to restore it to the way it was when Williams Bakery used it for truck ingress and egress. He thought the alley vacation should occur after the CUP was approved and a design was in place. Mr. Purcell “begged to differ” with those who praised the recent Olympic Trails as many business owners said they were not affected or did not have any business until late at night when the venue closed down. He speculated the same thing would occur with the arena. Mr. Purcell did not think that the EmX bus line could be likened to the transit used to get fans to football games. He said the park and ride facilities worked but there was overflow in south Eugene. Councilor Poling left the meeting. th Peter Graycroft , 19 and Orchard, thought the arena would be built and planned to use it, but was concerned there was no master plan in place for the area in question. He suggested that the City could consider Ohio State as a model to consider for what would probably happen in the area. He thought the arena would happen because it needed to, but also thought the neighborhood was correct to use the issue of the alley to raise the issue of public interest. His major concern was parking. He thought the UO wanted excellence in this arena as in all things. Mr. Graycroft said the UO needed to work on its relationship with the neighborhood and the City should use its authority to impose conditions that satisfied the neighborhood and addressed his concerns regarding the lack of a master plan. He said the UO needed to invest in structured parking, and the needs of neighbors in light of their different locations. Shelly Robertson , a Fairmount resident speaking on behalf of the Fairmount Neighborhood Arena Committee, asked that the record remain open for sufficient time to allow for traffic access and circulation studies to be done and submitted into the record. th Judy Horstman , 1835 East 28 Avenue, thought the arena would be of tremendous community benefit and for that reason the arena would be in the public benefit. However, she wanted the council to condition the vacation by stipulating the money the UO paid for the vacation would be used to mitigate any negative impacts that the arena created for the neighborhood. Mayor Piercy then called on those who were opposed to the vacations being proposed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 12 Public Hearing Misha Seymour , 1313 Lincoln Street, #307, disagreed with testimony that the UO wanted to work with the community because of past actions taken by the UO in regard to UO-owned housing. He speculated that many UO students did not want the arena because of other priorities, such as increasing fees and tuition. He thought there were other issues more important “for the people” that were not being addressed. He said the UO should do better in regard to affordable housing for people, asserting that people wanted the UO to continue to run the Westmoreland housing complex. Jonathan Bowers , 1149 Ferry Street, opposed the vacation because he believed the new arena was not needed and maintaining MacArthur Court better served the public interest. He asserted that those who disparaged MacArthur Court for safety reasons did not cite independent sources or studies. He said that many older arenas continued to be in use in the United States and cited some examples. They were being renovated rather than demolished. Keeping and renovating MacArthur Court served the public interest of the UO, the City, and the State as a historic remnant would be preserved and given landmark status, the UO would not have to consider taxpayer money for repayment of the bonds if that became necessary, and the UO would not be in debt for many years and could continue to use MacArthur Court at less expense over many years of time. Mark Robinowitz , PO Box 51222, Eugene, suggested the public was being diverted from larger issues by corporate sports and the community was prioritizing competition over cooperation. He said the UO was a publicly funded institute and its actions were causing people to vote no on new tax increases. He said the arena would not benefit the public but would benefit some companies and developers. He said it was perverse to call Eugene a human rights city because of Phil Knight’s role in funding the arena. He asserted that Mr. Knight exploited Indonesian girls at quasi- slave wages. He said that the EmX could not accommodate all those who would go to the arena and it would take fossil fuel to build the arena. He suggested the community would look back in regret at its decisions. Samantha Chirillo , a graduate student, opposed the arena project because she thought the UO should spend the money instead in homes for the homeless, energy security for all, and community policing. She said there was no time to lose to prepare for those things. Ms. Chiriillo said the arena and “any warping of the City Code” to accommodate the arena was foolish and a “crime against the common good and future generations.” She warned it would also set a “dangerous precedent” for City/neighborhood relations because of the work that had been done by the three entities in setting the parameters for University development. Ms. Chirillo assured the council that the UO had become a “corporate controlled, profit driven tumor” and no one could help keep it in check. She said the campus community was depending on the council to put the common good and emergency preparedness against projects such as the arena. Alice Warner , 1754 Orchard, asked the council to wait on a decision because it would not know what the public interest was until the University of Oregon went through the CUP process. As a neighbor, she did not have enough information. She did not think “this was the time.” She suggested that the request for a timely approval was a “very old trick” she was familiar with in her work as a project manager, when she frequently employed it in public testimony before public bodies. She asked the council “not to fall for it” and informed the council it could bring the issue back up after the CUP process, when all the information was in. Mayor Piercy called for applicant’s rebuttal. President Frohnmayer , on behalf of the UO, thanked the council for its courtesy and service to the public. He observed that the issue before the council was quasi-judicial, the decision was to be based on evidence in the record, and the standard was the public interest. He said the council had heard evidence about the need to replace the facility, about the economic impact, the economic sustainability of the new structure to be built, the needs of the disabled, the opportunities to be given young people as a result of the facility, about the issue of student athlete welfare, and about the lack of taxpayer funding. Money could be made available to the neighborhood to offset and MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 13 Public Hearing mitigate the issues that affected the community. The arena would help improve the appearance of the community, including Franklin Boulevard. He said the conversation that Mr. Paz wanted was yet to be held because it was premature and no one had yet discussed the use of those properties. He thought that when those properties were used, they should be used correctly. Those properties were acquired for use for the long-term public interest. He noted the testimony related to the multiple uses for the facility, and asked if the council had heard anything other than fears and opinions to the contrary. He asked if those fears and opinions were fact and if they outweighed the public interest. He believed there was time for a future discussion of conditions through the CUP process. This was a separate process. President Frohnmayer requested council approval. Ms. Jerome informed the council it had a statutory obligation to keep the record open for seven days, and there was an additional seven days that could be available to allow for rebuttal. She noted the code required the council to take action with 30 days of the close of the record, which could be difficult given the break. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman about the timeline for the CUP process, Planner Steve Ochs said the CUP was in the completeness stage. When the application was deemed complete, there would be 120 days allowed for the local decision, including an appeal to the Planning Commission. A hearing date would be set when the application was deemed complete. Councilor Bettman said it appeared that the rush for approval was an artificial rush given that the UO could not proceed without the CUP. Ms. Jerome indicated there might be some level of construction permitted as a result of the CUP, and it could be that the UO wanted to move forward with ground breaking. Councilor Bettman said she viewed her role as determining whether there was a public benefit from vacating the alley as opposed to maintaining it. Speaking to the City’s proposed assessment for the vacation, she maintained it was artificially low because it included more than the 20 feet of right-of-way. She asked the precise acreage when the alley, street, and right-of-way easements on both sides and the end were included. She wanted to see a higher number. She was not willing to use it to mitigate impacts from the arena as she thought the neighborhood organiza- tions should be negotiating with the UO to offset those costs. Councilor Bettman could justify a public benefit with more realistic estimate of property that was being conveyed to the UO and with a land exchange that was really in the public benefit, like parkland along the riverfront. Councilor Clark thanked all those who testified. He emphasized the decision was whether vacating the alley was in the public interest. He noted that Councilor Poling had asked him to request that he be contacted if the council decided to postpone the action beyond the break. Councilor Zelenka also thanked those who testified. He said the UO would like to start excavating soon and the neighbors supported that. However, both the alley vacation and a CUP were required to get to the building permit stage. The timeframe for that was November-December. He said the UO was seeking an opinion from the Attorney General allowing it to move forward with excavation without a building permit. He asked City Manager Ruiz to speak to that issue. City Manager Ruiz indicated the UO requested such an opinion, which would allow it to grade and excavate on the property without a permit. He said the City had not yet received an opinion from the Attorney General’s Office. If not granted, the UO could move forward if the alley vacation was granted because it would be the UO’s property, or the City could choose to issue a temporary or irrevocable permit for grading on the project site. Ms. Jerome added that the City had not yet determined how it would proceed with an Attorney General’s opinion. Councilor Zelenka appreciated UO concerns about cost delays but also appreciated the neighbors’ concerns about the impact of the arena, particularly post-construction impacts. They wanted those impacts mitigated to the degree possible. They were seeking a relatively modest amount to mitigate those impacts. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 14 Public Hearing Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Jerome reviewed possible timelines for closing the record and taking action. She noted that the deadline for action was September 10. Councilor Zelenka perceived that as providing time for all the processes to come together. Councilor Bettman believed the council would need more time if it was to consider anything beyond what had been submitted to this point. Speaking to the issue of the evidence on the record, she said she saw no evidence, merely statements without findings in support. She did not know what the properties were to be used for. The council could be vacating the property for a parking lot. She recalled that the application mentioned maintaining pedestrian th easements on the east-west 13 Avenue segment, but bicycles were not mentioned and the easements were not described. She wanted to know the increase in travel time for those seeking to access the EmX line. Councilor Bettman spoke to the issue of significant economic benefit and said there was no evidence of the 2,000 jobs mentioned in testimony in the findings. She asked if those were family wage jobs, and how long they would last. The application lacked traffic impact studies. She asked if the council’s decision could be appealed. Ms. Jerome said that staff had prepared two ordinances, both of which could be appealed to LUBA. Responding to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Jerome said the ordinances could not be referred to the voters. Councilor Bettman did not think the amount to be assessed reimbursed the public in regard to the connectivity that currently existed. She was very interested in a land exchange. Responding to a question from Councilor Pryor, Ms. Jerome said the council first needed to decide if it wished to keep the record open for 21 days or 14 days. She noted that the statutes grant the applicant the opportunity for seven additional days for rebuttal after that time. She noted that the UO had offered to waive that seven additional days if the council acted before the council recess. She suggested that a possible motion was to hold the record open for seven days until 5:00 p.m. on Monday July 28, during which anyone could submit written testimony; and open for another seven-day period ending 5:00 p.m. August 4 during which anyone can submit testimony rebutting evidence submitted in the past seven days. City Manager Ruiz confirmed that staff could have the information requested by the council in time for a decision prior to the recess. Ms. Jerome recommended that the council adopt a 14-day period initially. Councilor Pryor wanted to ensure that the council acted no later than September 8. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to keep the record open for 14 days, August 4, 2008, with a council decision to follow on August 11, 2008. Mr. Clark contacted Councilor Poling by telephone. Councilor Zelenka saw no need to rush a decision. He thought the council already had a very full schedule, and pointed out the alley vacation did not benefit the UO unless it received a favorable decision from the Attorney General. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to keep the record open for 21 days to August 11, 2008, and to schedule council action on September 8, 2008. Councilor Zelenka wanted staff to return with text that made the vacations contingent on the CUP for the arena to ensure the council was not vacating the alley for a parking lot. He also wanted to see the calculation behind the assessment. He noted a statement in the application that the vacations would not transfer traffic to other streets, but given the UO’s proposal to route truck traffic onto Villard Street, he wanted to see any egress/ingress studies that existed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 15 Public Hearing Speaking to the issue of the public interest, Councilor Zelenka said there were no taxpayer dollars being used to build the arena but it could have a local economic impact in the form of lost property taxes and future maintenance costs. Councilor Zelenka thanked both the UO and neighborhood residents for meeting to identify the issues of concern. He thought it was time to get to work and suggested the UO return to the next liaison committee with a very specific “straw man” proposal that addressed all the issues identified by the neighbors so those could be discussed in more detail. Councilor Ortiz said that it appeared there was a need to expedite the application, so she was somewhat challenged by the motion. She asked for more information about the Attorney General’s opinion and its impact on the decision before the council. Ms. Jerome did not have first-hand knowledge of the question posed by the UO or what to expect. She did not think the council could rely on the opinion to any degree in the decision before it. Councilor Ortiz thought the City needed to get the most “bang for its buck,” and she liked the idea of a land exchange, particularly a riparian property. She asked if there was an opportunity for a traffic impact analysis. Mr. Ochs said there was a traffic impact analysis in the CUP. He did not think staff could evaluate the alley impact in 14 days using that information. The Hearings Official would make the final determination about the analysis as part of the larger CUP. Councilor Ortiz emphasized the importance of the jobs that would be created by the arena project to her constituency and said she was unsure how she would vote. Councilor Taylor questioned whether the council had heard enough about the public interest in regard to the vacation of the street as opposed to the public interest in regard to the arena. She wanted to know how the assessment amount was arrived at, and if the council could legally ask the UO for more money. She was also interested in the land exchange mentioned by Councilor Bettman. She supported Councilor Zelenka’s motion. Councilor Bettman believed the council was being asked to make a decision before all the issues emerged and before the public had a chance to “catch on” to what the easements were. She was concerned about the easements and who would pay to move the utilities. She was not seeing enough information in the materials before the council. She reiterated her concern about the loss of connectivity and the larger impacts from the arena. People were suggesting that the City use the money to mitigate the impacts of the arena but the City did not know what those impacts were. She did not think the motion would delay the start time of the arena project, which she was confident would be built as the council had no power to stop it, and could only work to mitigate its impact and get a fair deal for its citizens. She did not think a quick turnaround before the recess would give staff and the neighborhood time to negotiate conditions with the UO. Councilor Bettman suggested the council consider an “in-lieu-of-taxes” approach to the request. Councilor Zelenka did not think the motion would unnecessarily delay the UO but would give the council time to do due diligence and address the important issues already on its schedule. He pointed out the council could attach an emergency clause to its action to facilitate the UO’s plans. Councilor Ortiz said she tried to think of the issue in terms of how it affected her constituency. While it did not sound like the world would end if the council delayed, she thought the arena could be beneficial to the community. She did not want to give mixed messages to the UO in regard to what she considered its community contributions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 16 Public Hearing Councilor Clark noted that he had Councilor Poling on the telephone. He said he favored the original motion because he thought an expedited process made more sense. Councilor Zelenka restated the motion for the benefit of Councilor Poling. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka voting yes; councilors Solomon, Poling, Clark, and Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy thought that councilors and neighbors had unanswered questions and no opportunity to review conditions. She also thought the council had time to act without getting in the way of the UO and could take final action with a broad council majority. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Jerome cautioned the council and mayor present against ex parte contacts. Councilor Bettman clarified with Mr. Ochs that the record was on the City’s website and clarified the timelines for testimony with Ms. Jerome. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Jerome indicated she would provide him with information about the use of the emergency clause prior to the time the council took action. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the amended motion. The amended motion passed 5:3; Councilor Solomon, Councilor Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 17 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 13, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling and Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 5:30 p.m. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Ms. Piercy noted that Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary would be reporting during the meeting in lieu of City Manager Jon Ruiz. Ms. Piercy noted a recent visit from representatives of Eugene’s sister city, Irkutsk, Russia who had presented an award to the City. Ms. Piercy noted that on October 16 there would be a City Hall Week event on behalf of the League of Oregon Cities in which the City of Eugene would be participating. She commented that the event was designed to provide City officials, legislators and candidates the opportunity to meet and discuss issues of vital importance to the area. Ms. Piercy noted an upcoming farewell party for outgoing Chief of Police Robert Lehner. Ms. Piercy took the opportunity to thank Chief Lehner for his service to the community on behalf of the City of Eugene. Ms. Bettman asked about the special administrative fee increase specified in the recent City administrative order (44-08-07). She specifically asked if the fee increase and the corresponding tax assessments would apply to Crest when any street renovations or improvement began or once any such work had been completed. City Attorney Jerome Lidz responded that he did not know and would have to research the matter before coming back with an answer for the council. Ms. Bettman noted there was serious public concern regarding recent decisions affecting the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic. Ms. Zelenka reported he had been involved with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process regarding the University of Oregon’s proposed arena project, noting that he had been working with the Fairmount Neighborhood Association as well as University representatives with the goal of drafting an acceptable Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the near future. Mr. Zelenka said there was a South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) meeting scheduled for October 14. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka commented there were two parks in Ward 3 that were currently under construction, one in the Fairmount neighborhood and one in University Park. Ms. Ortiz reported that Roosevelt Boulevard in Ward 7 was currently being repaved. She also noted that she had recently discussed the potential for an emergency medical services summit with Eugene Fire & EMS Chief Randall Groves. Mr. Clark expressed thanks to Chief Lehner for his service to the community. He noted he had met earlier in the day with Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds to discuss local issues. Mr. Clark reported he had participated in the recent 4J School District’s Principal for a Day event at Gilham Elementary School, and noted it was a very informative experience. He reminded the council that a meeting of the Cal Young Neighborhood Association (CYNA) was planned for October 23 at the Sheldon Community Center. Mr. Clark asked Ms. Medary for more information regarding the development schedule of Creekside Park which he could then pass on to the CYNA. Ms. Taylor encouraged the Council members to participate in the previously mentioned City Hall Day event. She reported she had recently participated in a tour of sites involved in the Neighborhood Matching Grant Program, and was very impressed by the variety and level of community involvement in the projects. Ms. Taylor also noted her recent attendance at the memorial service for Bob Rosen, a community member who had edited the Southeast Neighbors newsletter for several years and had been very involved in community volunteer efforts. Mr. Poling noted he had recently attended a Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County, Oregon (CVALCO) meeting in Florence where he and several other public and private sector representatives had discussed ways to better link the marketing efforts of the Lane County and the City of Eugene governments. He noted that the group would very likely be shortening their name in the near future and that CVALCO representatives would make themselves available to speak at any upcoming council meetings if necessary. Ms. Solomon thanked City Planning staff for their assistance in addressing the needs of one of her constituents. She reminded the council that the Active Bethel Citizens (ABC) group would be holding a meeting on October 16 and encouraged them to attend. She noted that the ABC meeting would have a presentation from their sponsors regarding their involvement in their Highway 99 project. Ms. Medary noted that representatives from several local public schools would be signing their Diversity and Human Rights Consortium agreement at a ceremony on October 14. She reported that, in preparation for the October 29 City Council work session, several downtown business leaders had been invited to the Tango Center on October 15 to the participate in an informal conversation with City staff regarding parking issues in the downtown area. Ms. Medary added that the first ever Prevention Convention organized by the Eugene Police Department would be taking place on October 18 at South Eugene High School and would be devoted to educating the public about a variety of crime prevention and public safety practices. B. WORK SESSION: Lane Transit District Service Reduction Proposal Ms. Medary introduced Lane Transit District (LTD) Board President Mike Eyster, Service Planning Manager Will Muller and General Manager Mark Pangborn, noting that they would be presenting details regarding proposed LTD service reductions. Mr. Eyster thanked the council for the opportunity to speak, and presented a PowerPoint report describing in detail the current state of LTD ridership/revenues and also the proposed service reductions. He noted that MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 2 Work Session the current financial crisis which had necessitated the proposed service reductions was precipitated by a “perfect storm” of increased fuel costs, increased use of accessibility services for elderly and disabled riders well beyond established projections, and decreased payroll revenue streams brought on by the generally unfavorable economic climate. Mr. Eyster commented that LTD had earlier in the year considered sponsoring a ballot measure to seek financial relief for LTD. He noted that LTD had ultimately chosen not to pursue such a course of action, and that subsequently the only option left was to reduce service by approximately 15%. Mr. Muller presented a slide detailing the LTD’s “Service Redesign Goals” and noted that the redesign goals were drafted with the intent of meeting the necessary budgetary goals while negatively impacting LTD service levels as little as possible. Mr. Muller noted that LTD had held several open houses and public input sessions over the last two months related to the proposed service reductions, and noted that public hearings would be held on October 13 and November 10. He added that the adoption of the service reduction plan was currently scheduled for the November 19 regular LTD board meeting and that the service reductions would go into effect no later than September 2009, with some portions of the service reductions being implemented as early as February 2009. Mr. Muller proceeded to guide the council through a sector by sector summary of the proposed service reduction changes listed in the agenda materials submitted to the council as they pertained to the Ferry Street Bridge, River Road, Highway 99, West Eugene, South Eugene, and Springfield area LTD sectors. Mr. Zelenka asked, with respect to the changes to the Ferry Street Bridge LTD sector and the elimination of the Breeze route, if the revised LTD bus routes would stop in the same places as those routes that had been eliminated or curtailed. Mr. Muller confirmed that they would. Mr. Muller also commented that while many express routes were proposed to be eliminated, all LTD destinations would still be served, albeit with more transfers and less-expedient alternative routes. Mr. Muller, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon regarding the proposed Highway 99 sector, noted that no new LTD transfer stations would be built at the new transfer point of Roosevelt and Danebo, although a covered shelter structure might be built if the level of ridership justified such an expense. Mr. Muller, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz regarding the proposed West Eugene sector, clarified th the nature of travel for a person going from points along Highway 99 to the Wal-Mart location on West 11 Avenue, noting that a person traveling in such a manner would have to make one transfer along the way. Mr. Pangborn elaborated upon Mr. Muller’s comments saying that LTD had actually eliminated fare transfers a number or years ago in favor of all-day passes. Mr. Muller, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the South Eugene sector, noted that the th connector route along 29 Avenue between LTD routes 24 and 82 was not being eliminated as was indicated on the materials submitted to the council. Mr. Eyster added that the connector route had been reinstated in response to the aforementioned public input meetings. Mr. Muller reported that the Breeze route buses would be utilized for neighborhood service around town, specifically for the River Road connector service, the Bethel/Danebo connector route, the Campbell Center th route (LTD Route No. 1), the Jefferson Avenue route (LTD Route No. 33), and the routes along 18 and th 19 Avenues. He added that the Breeze buses would not be repainted for this purpose but would only employ new decals to indicate their revised status. Mr. Muller, in response to a request from Mr. Zelenka, indicated the proposed EmX extension routes within MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 3 Work Session the Springfield sector which were not demonstrated on the map submitted to the council. Mr. Muller proceeded to summarize the proposed service revisions noting that they represented a 14.5% service cut for LTD. He noted that similar cuts were enacted in 2000 in a two-step process, which was unpleasant but manageable, after several sustained expansion periods throughout the 1990’s. He commented that the current service reductions might be much more difficult as there was not as much substandard or superfluous LTD service. Mr. Muller noted that certain portions of LTD service might be reinstated should economic conditions improve. Mr. Eyster commented that it was very painful to have to cut service to such a great extent, particularly because ridership had been up considerably in recent years. Mr. Pangborn, in response to a question from Ms. Piercy, noted that the fixed route transit systems comparable to LTD in Portland, Salem and Medford were all undergoing similar service reductions, although the Tri-Met transit system in Portland did not have to eliminate as much service as LTD since they had fared better financially in recent months. Mr. Muller, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, commented that there was no current plan or similar prioritization in place for reinstating service that was being cut once economic conditions improved. Ms. Piercy asked the LTD representatives what the public’s general concerns were regarding the loss of regular LTD infrastructure routes as opposed to any changes in the nature of the service provided by the EmX routes. Mr. Muller responded that LTD was considering charging the public for the EmX service, but that there were factors in place, such as the basic cost of implementing a fare system for EmX that would prohibit doing so for the near future. Mr. Muller added that there were no current plans to increase the frequency of EmX buses because it was currently cost-prohibitive to do so. Mr. Pangborn added that there was a wide range of public response with regard to what LTD services were being cut, and that a basic philosophical question being presented to LTD was whether it was going to function as a social safety net, providing less frequent service over as large an area as possible, or as a mass transit device designed to move as many people as possible in order to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. Ms. Piercy asked what conversations LTD had with the Oregon state legislature or any other government entities about remedying access service. Mr. Eyster responded that conversations with the state legislature were ongoing, but looked optimistic. Mr. Pangborn added that Governor Kulongoski was expected to propose a balanced transit bill in the future that might access service. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Pangborn to clarify the decision-making process used to determine service reductions or adjustments, particularly with regard to the possibility of charging for EmX service. Mr. Pangborn replied that while LTD was in initial preparations to begin charging fares for EmX service, many of the persons utilizing EmX were already paying an LTD fare of one kind or another. Mr. Pangborn added that EmX was already a highly subsidized service and that charging fares would not necessarily be of enormous benefit. Mr. Pangborn, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka regarding LTD’s budgetary plans between now and September 2009, commented that in addition to the proposed service reductions being presented, LTD was spending down approximately $3.5 million in reserve funds in addition to considering further service reductions should the current proposals prove insufficient. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pangborn noted that any funding assistance from the State legislature would most likely not materialize until the first or second quarters of 2010 due to the logistics involved in collecting and disbursing such funds. Mr. Pangborn, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about what revenue sources might be used by the State legislature to provide additional funding to LTD, said that cigarette/tobacco, certain systems development charges, and additional parking or payroll taxes might be used. Mr. Pangborn added that gas tax funds could not be used to provide funding to LTD or similar public transportation concerns as it was prohibited by state law. Mr. Pangborn, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the current Oregon payroll tax rate was 0.0064% and would be increasing to 0.0065% beginning in January of 2009. Mr. Pangborn, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, commented that LTD’s 15% overall service reduction goal might necessitate the termination of between 25 and 27 bus drivers. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Pangborn to respond to the public perception that the EmX system itself was at least partially to blame for the current LTD budgetary crisis. Mr. Pangborn responded by repeating the philosophical dichotomy he had referenced earlier about whether LTD should focus on being a social service safety net or a mass transit initiative. Mr. Pangborn added that even thought LTD had always attempted to balance those two guiding philosophies, the LTD board had 14 years previously adopted a strategic plan that emphasized mass transit over social services. Mr. Pangborn reminded Mr. Zelenka that the primary reason for the budgetary crisis was not the use of the EmX system, but rather the triple-threat of increased fuel costs, increased accessibility/paratransit costs, and the poor condition of the economy. Mr. Eyster elaborated on Mr. Pangborn’s comments for Mr. Zelenka, noting that funds that had been devoted to EmX in the past would not have been eligible for other areas of LTD. Ms. Bettman asked how many riders per day were represented by LTD’s targeted 15% service reduction. Mr. Pangborn and Mr. Muller replied that while they did not know exactly, they could extrapolate such a number from reviewing the current productivity of the routes affected by the proposed service reductions. Mr. Eyster, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, noted that LTD had taken efforts to ensure coverage for the elderly, disabled and economically disadvantaged citizens of Lane County. Ms. Bettman asked why LTD had not been lobbying the State legislature for access to gas tax funds. Mr. Pangborn replied that such efforts had historically fallen on deaf ears and that even if LTD were granted the ability to utilize gas tax funds there would still not be enough money to resolve the LTD budget crisis. Mr. Pangborn, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, noted that a series of cuts at the administrative level of LTD had already been completed in anticipation of the budget crisis and resultant service reduction cuts. Mr. Pangborn was unable to give exact figures regarding the number and nature of the administrative cuts. Mr. Pangborn, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, noted that LTD had spoken to Governor Kulongoski regarding the aforementioned transit bill and made it clear to him that what was needed in any such bill would be direct operational funding support rather than a capital funding mechanism. Ms. Bettman felt that the LTD budget crisis was highly unfortunate since so many land use and transportation issues hinged upon the ability of LTD to provide adequate mass transit service to the citizens of Lane County. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 5 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: Adoption of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) Policy Recommendations Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson presented the draft report and policy recommendations regarding SAFETEA-LU as reflected in the materials submitted to the council. She noted that the federal transportation bill was due to expire on September 30, 2009, and that there was no new transportation bill scheduled to take its place at that time although there were expected to be continuations of the current bill to provide interim funds in the event that SAFETEA-LU was not reauthorized. Ms. Wilson said the new Federal Surface Transportation Bill (FSTB) represented an opportunity to make policy changes, to change the structure and the requirements of long-standing programs, to introduce new initiatives, and to add oversight requirements and responses. Ms. Wilson commented that the draft report and policy recommendations were the result of collaboration over the last several weeks between the staffs of LTD, the cities of Springfield and Eugene and Lane County, who had come together to review the current bill and its goals of increased safety, program delivery improvement, and the establishment of more efficient delivery systems. Ms. Wilson noted that the draft report and recommendations before the council would be forwarded once approved to Congressman Peter DeFazio. Ms. Wilson briefed the council on the Current Challenges, Policy Recommendations and Regional Program Priorities of the FSTB as listed in the draft report. She added that the Regional Program Priorities were not actually projects but only priorities with which to assist in more specific policy recommendations related to the FSTB. Ms. Bettman felt that what was needed in the adoption of the FSTB was a shift in funding strategies rather than the dominant paradigm. She added that the language in the draft report was so vague that it could allow current transportation legislation to proceed with no measurable policy changes. She maintained that any letter or report sent to Congressman DeFazio should contain specific operational requests for transit funding, alternative modes, and operations and maintenance funding related to preservation of the current transportation infrastructure. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about how funds provided in any reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU might trickle down to Eugene, noted that SAFETEA-LU funds were not typically allocated in a formula-based manner and, as such, that any specific trickle down benefits would be difficult to quantify. th Ms. Bettman advocated for the inclusion of access management and a boulevard treatment along West 11 Avenue as issues to be included in the final recommendations to Congressman DeFazio. Ms. Wilson, in response to a question from Mr. Clark, said that the federal priority partners referred to in the Agenda Item Summary referred to the various intergovernmental relations managers from Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, LTD and Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) who had collaborated in drafting the report and policy recommendations. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, noted that the broad policy recommendations listed in the draft report would most likely not have the opportunity to be discussed at any further joint elected officials meeting as the draft policy was scheduled to be sent to Congressman DeFazio before the end of the year. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark felt that while he could agree with the broader regional program policies of preserving existing assets, enhancing public safety and supporting strategic economic investments, he could not support the entirety of the policy recommendations in the draft report. Mr. Clark asked for further clarification regarding the nature of the freight rail connections between Eugene- Springfield and the Coos Bay port as listed in the multi-modal transportation solution section of the Regional Program Priorities in the draft report. Ms. Wilson answered that she did not have any additional information but would research the matter and get back to him. Ms. Solomon thought that the draft report contained several good ideas and that of particular interest to her was the idea of moving freight transportation off of roads and back onto railways. Ms. Solomon and Ms. Wilson briefly discussed the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) relationship to the FSTB and SAFETEA-LU, with Ms. Wilson noting there had been some disagreement between ODOT and Congressman DeFazio about how federal funds might be allocated with regard to transportation projects. Ms. Taylor asked what changes might be seen as a result of the council’s support of the draft report and policy recommendations. Ms. Wilson confirmed that one of the key desired changes inherent in the policy recommendations was for the federal government to reconsider the manner in which money was distributed and prioritized. Ms. Taylor expressed that true funding flexibility as was described in the draft report would mean that local governments such as Eugene would have more authority to use federal money as they saw fit in addressing problems of air quality and traffic congestion. Mr. Zelenka noted that he supported the policy recommendations listed in the draft report and said that a lack of adequate funding was likely to stall important transportation initiatives for quite some time. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Bettman’s assessment that operational funding needed to be part of any final list of recommendations sent to Congressman DeFazio, much more so than vague references to a paradigm shift. Ms. Piercy asked if Ms. Wilson had had any conversations with the other IGR managers where a focus on operational funding directives was suggested in a more direct fashion than broad references to increased funding flexibility. Ms. Wilson indicated that there had been no such conversations. Ms. Piercy responded that it was necessary to be much more specific in communicating what was important to the community regarding transportation policies and projects. Mr. Clark, sensing a general sense of support from the council about the philosophies of the draft report in addition to a great deal of unease about its lack of specifics, asked if there might be an intermediary step between approving or denying the staff’s recommendation that might be helpful in making the report more productive. Ms. Wilson replied that she would investigate the matter with her colleagues to see if anything could be done to make the draft report more specific for the council. Ms. Taylor noted that it would be helpful to take the council’s input to the IGR committees in order to give the draft report more specificity. She felt there was ample time to do so before sending the report to Congressman DeFazio. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, noted that there was no specific project list related to the draft report and policy recommendations at this time, but that such a list might be drafted by the end of the year, certainly before March 2009. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Piercy indicated there was a consensus from the council that their concerns regarding the draft report and policy recommendations should be taken before the IGR committee. Ms. Wilson commented that she would do so and then report back to the council The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing/Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 20, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Amending the 1999 Street Classification Map and Classifying All of the Streets in the Crest Drive Area as Local Streets and An Ordinance Amending the 1999 Street Classification Map and Classifying Portions of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street as Neighborhood Collectors and the Remaining Streets in the Crest Drive Area as Local Streets Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Paul Moore , Potter Street, Eugene, said classification acknowledged actual traffic patterns and classified streets accordingly. He said classification as a neighborhood collector would not automatically increase the permitted speed to 35 miles per hour (mph). He said there were three criteria for increasing the speed limit: average daily trips, crash history and 85 percent of the vehicles were moving at a particular speed or less. A request from the City to change the speed limit had to demonstrate that those criteria were met; street classification was not a factor. th Deb Frisch , West 11 Avenue, stated that the Crest area neighbors were extraordinarily selfish as Storey Boulevard and Crest Drive were the main arterials facilitating the egress of bicyclists from Eugene onto the Lorane Highway and local vineyards. She said there was already uneasy tension between limousines on wine tasting tours and cyclists on that route and the selfish neighborhood association had persuaded the council that their space was more important than bicyclists’ right to a safe route. She cautioned the council about liability when a cyclist was killed. John Donovan , Crest Drive, Eugene, said the citizens of Crest Drive had worked for several years in good faith with City engineers to create a road plan that respected the topography and safety concerns of all the residents in the Crest Drive area and at the outset stated their desire for a low impact, slow road that not only served residents but visitors who came to the neighborhood. He said after all that effort City engineers continued to subvert the collaborative process because they preferred collector streets and intended to install a 20-foot roadbed. He said it was difficult to trust the democratic process. He said neighbors were asking for local streets that respected the terrain and topography instead of car-centric designs that had greater MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 20, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing environmental impact and greater costs. He said bicyclists and pedestrians were safer where traffic was slow and low in volume. Kathy Saranpa , Friendly Street, Eugene, said she was vice chair of the Crest Drive Neighborhood Association and a member of the Crest Drive Community Team Advisory Group, but was speaking as a private citizen. She spoke in support of local street designation for Crest Drive, Friendly Street and Storey Boulevard. She reviewed the history of neighborhood involvement in the street design process and said that local street designation made the most sense. She urged approval of the ordinance for local designation. Barbara Donovan , Crest Drive, Eugene, thanked the council for their support of efforts to keep the Crest neighborhood livable and reviewed the history of context-sensitive design work. She had thought that the context-sensitive design process meant that it would not be necessary to come before the council for permission to go slightly outside the guidelines for Eugene’s improvement standards. She said local street designation was central to the neighborhood’s values; local streets allowed traffic-calming efforts and collectors did not. She said even though residents were assured street design would not change with collector designation, it would open the door to future improvements. She urged the council to approve local street designation. Len Bailey , Friendly Street, Eugene, thanked the council for its support of the context-sensitive design process. He said Crest Drive area neighbors had worked hard to achieve local street designation, but City staff had refused to consider any designation other than collectors and had thwarted the process. He asked the council to vote to designate the neighborhood streets as local. John Rude , Courtney Place, Eugene, said he had been active in the context-sensitive design process. He related that several years ago the neighborhood had vehemently opposed collector street designation and that resulted in the design process, during which City engineers said that collector designation was off the table. The design work was based on the assumption of local street designation and with the intent of decreased pass-through traffic, slower speeds, enhanced livability, preservation of the neighborhood’s historical value and protection of the natural environment. He questioned why the council, given the City’s investment in the process to-date, would consider changing classification and redesigning streets based on collector designa- tion. He asked the council to uphold the integrity of the work and support local street designation. Sherie Hawley , Storey Boulevard, Eugene, displayed the large amount of materials accumulated over the past six years of work on the Crest Drive neighborhood street design process. She said much of the work focused on the core issue of classification in a context-sensitive design process. She said the basic question still remained: collector or local designation. She said higher traffic counts on neighborhood streets were the result of cut-through traffic and that would be eliminated with traffic-calming measures. She asked to have the streets designated as local streets so the designs could be completed. Dave Pompel , View Lane, Eugene, expressed concern about collector designation increasing speed on Crest Drive. He said residents along View Lane were blind to cars coming from the west on Crest Drive when pulling out of their driveways. He said any possibility of increasing speed on the street would put those who lived on View Lane at even greater risk and accidents were inevitable. Susan Stafford , Storey Boulevard, Eugene, reviewed the time, efforts and funds that had gone into context- sensitive street design. She said the intent was to improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. The potential 35 mph designation under collector status would ignore that work and be an insult to all of those who participated in it. She asked the council to approve the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 20, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing Randall McGowen , View Lane, Eugene, endorsed the majority of his neighbors’ comments. He was a regular cyclist on neighborhood streets and said collector designation would adversely impact users, particularly bicyclists. He said the streets should remain local and drivers should be encouraged to respect cyclists. He asked the council to respect the interests, ecology and culture of the neighborhood. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and invited comments from councilors. Councilor Taylor thanked those who spoke. She questioned why the council had been presented with two ordinances. City Engineer Mark Schoening explained that the council’s motion on April 14, 2008, had directed staff to return with a motion that classified all of the streets in the Crest Drive area as local streets. He said the second ordinance, following the street rating and classification system used for the entire City, classified portions of Crest Drive, Friendly Street and Storey Boulevard as neighborhood collectors and the remainder of the streets as local streets. He said that represented the staff’s professional and technical expertise based on classifications elsewhere throughout the city. Councilor Poling thanked staff for presenting both sides of the issue as part of the decision-making process. He said whether or not the council agreed with the staff recommendation, at least their decision would be informed by seeing both sides of the question. Councilor Clark also thanked those who spoke. He felt that given the information presented he needed to support the City’s commitment to the neighborhood in the context-sensitive design process. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation to those who testified for speaking with reason and respect for differences of opinion. 2. WORK SESSION Police Auditor Recruitment Process Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the police auditor position description included in the packet. Alana Holmes, Human Resources, said the purpose of the work session was to review, and if necessary, revise the description. She said that Eric Middleton, a recruiter, felt that some parts of the job description could cause redundancies in the recruitment brochure and he was available by phone to discuss that. She distributed copies of Mr. Middleton’s recommended changes. Councilor Bettman asked for clarification of the recommended changes. Ms. Holmes explained that the sections highlighted in green were recommended for deletion from the job description within the brochure because they were redundant to the Ideal Candidate section already approved by the council. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the job descrip- tion under the section Description from “receiving complaints” to “receiving and classifying complaints.” The motion passed, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the job descrip- tion under the section Supervision Received and Exercised to reflect language in the ordinance to read “Exercises exclusive authority to hire, supervise, and to make all other employment decisions regarding the auditor’s support staff.” The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 20, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to amend the job de- scription under the section Examples of Duties to replace the second to last section with “Supervises auditor’s office staff, including: hiring and evaluations, schedul- ing and work assignments, monitoring and directing activities, coaching and train- ing.” The motion passed, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the job descrip- tion under the section Training to require a Juris Doctorate from an accredited uni- versity. The motion passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling and Solomon voting no. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the job descrip- tion under the section Examples of Duties to include “Coordinates and conducts education and outreach activities to inform the community about the complaint processing system.” City Attorney Jerome Lidz pointed out that the language was already included in the job description. Councilor Bettman withdrew her motion. Councilor Clark said there was a section that discussed the auditor’s duty to periodically make reports to the council, but it did not discuss entering into binding agreements of any nature such as the protocols negotiated with the police union and a requirement that those agreements be reviewed and affirmed by the council. He asked how such language might be crafted. Mr. Lidz replied that he was not certain the auditor’s role in negotiations with the police union was part of the auditor’s ongoing responsibilities. He said it represented a one-time situation in which the auditor and police chief agreed on certain protocols and that likely fell under the description in the ordinance of the responsibility of the chief and the auditor to cooperatively develop processes for handling complaints and exchanging information. He did not feel it needed to be addressed as a legal requirement in the position description but would draft language if the council wished to include it. Councilor Clark stated it was important to him to include in the job description as part of the pre-understood agreement of what the auditor’s role was. He felt the council should have some oversight if the auditor was in the process of negotiating a binding agreement of some nature. Mr. Lidz said he did not understand the auditor to have authority to bind the City in a collective bargaining arrangement and he did not believe that had occurred. Councilor Clark said he hoped the issue could be clarified at a later work session. Councilor Bettman commented that the job description said the duties were included, but not exclusive, and the description was not intended to be exhaustive, all inclusive or reflect the future. Councilor Zelenka said legally the police auditor had no authority to bind the City unless granted that authority by the council. Councilor Pryor said he distinguished between duties and authority and that the job description did not in any way reduce the authority of the council. He said the auditor could not bind the City without the approval of the City Council. Councilor Clark asked if the Police Auditor had reported to the council after the fact when she previously negotiated protocols with the Police Chief and police union. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 20, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy recalled that the auditor had reported to the council upon successful completion of the negotiations. She did not believe that the council had requested that it review the agreement in advance or approve it upon completion. Councilor Clark said he wanted to be clear with the next auditor that the council wished to take a more active role in regular communication and supervision and that there were expectations regarding agreements. City Manager Jon Ruiz emphasized that the police auditor could not bind the City in any type of collective bargaining agreement; the city manager had that ability. He said the protocols more closely resembled agreements between department executives, but if the council wanted to be engaged in that process before the auditor came to an agreement with another part of the City organization it could require that. The motion passed, 8:0. Mr. Middleton reviewed and explained his recommended changes. There were no objections. Ms. Holmes described the next steps in the recruitment process. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 20, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 22, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Alan Zelenka (via telephone), and Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. Ms. Piercy noted items to be discussed that were not included in the meeting agenda concerned the updated police auditor brochure and ballot postage for the upcoming November elections. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved for approval of the recruitment brochure for the police auditor. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. (Mr. Zelenka had not yet joined the meeting by phone and was not present for the vote.) Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to allocate up to $2,500 from the General Fund contingency to pay for Eugene’s approximate share of postage due on mailed ballots. Ms. Bettman commented she had been alarmed to learn that the ballots provided to citizens for the upcoming elections were larger than had been anticipated and would require additional postage beyond the standard $0.42 in order to be mailed correctly, a fact which Ms. Bettman felt had not been adequately communicated to the community. She expressed that it was very important that every vote be counted properly. Ms. Piercy noted that State Representative David Edwards was also concerned about the postage matter for the ballots and had been working at the state level to provide additional funds for ballot postage. Mr. Clark said he supported the motion, noting that he had spoken to Lane County Commissioners Bobby Green and Faye Stewart regarding the matter. He noted that the Lane County Board of Commissioners had passed a motion to cover a majority of the funds that would be required to make sure that the ballots were delivered and counted properly. Mr. Poling confirmed that Ms. Bettman’s motion indicated that it would provide for any funds over the standard $0.42 postage rate so that no one’s ballot would arrive at the Lane County Board of Elections office with postage due whereupon it might be returned to the voter. Ms. Solomon asked if the City had the support of the post office regarding the motion and if they knew of the potential problem regarding the larger, heavier ballot envelopes. Ms. Piercy could not answer the question but noted that her understanding was that any ballot arriving with postage due would be rejected. Mr. Clark commented that he understood that the Lane County Commissioners had that morning agreed to accept any ballots that had insufficient postage and that such coverage would be covered out of their contingency funds. He supported Ms. Bettman’s motion and felt it was a good way for the City to step up and make sure that each vote was counted properly. MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Ortiz noted that voters could still drop their ballots off themselves at the various drop boxes throughout Lane County. Mr. Piercy noted there was a general unawareness in the community of the additional postage required by the larger ballots. She further noted that the council’s actions in this matter would not be taken on as a permanent policy, but only as a means to address this unique problem. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Bettman’s previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. (Mr. Zelenka had not yet joined the meeting by phone and was not present for the vote.) A. WORK SESSION: th Review of Outline of Terms of Sale and Development of 10 and Charnelton Site Ms. Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). Ms. Piercy expressed surprise at a recent Register-Guard article and, after speaking with City Manager Jon Ruiz, felt th that the article was an inaccurate representation of the current status of the development project at the 10 and Charnelton site. Mr. Clark commented for the benefit of the board and the community that he had no current business relationship with WG Development, although Mr. Clark’s advertising business had done business with WG Advertising. He noted that he had conferred with the City attorney, who had in turn informed him that there appeared to be no actual or potential conflicts of interest represented by Mr. Clark’s involvement in any matters concerning the WG Development proposal. Planning Division Manager Michael Sullivan reiterated the statement and background of the issues surrounding the th development of the 10 and Charnelton site from the agenda item summary previously submitted to the council. Mr. Sullivan noted that the timeline regarding WG Development’s project had been amended after the timeline included in their original Request for Proposal (RFP) response appeared to be overly optimistic. He commented that, contrary to recent newspaper reports, the project had not suffered any delays due to recent economic downturns. Planner Nan Laurence presented an overview of the terms of the proposed purchase and sale agreement, as well as th an update on the overall status of the project. She noted that the portions of the 10 and Charnelton development site owned by Diamond Parking would soon be acquired by the URA at which time the property could be conveyed to WG Development. Ms. Laurence proceeded to brief the council on the elements of the purchase and sale agreement as reflected in her slide presentation as well as in the outline previously distributed to the council as attachment A to the agenda item summary. Ms. Laurence noted that Wally Graff and Nathan Phillips of WG Development were in attendance at the meeting, as was John Bartell of Opus NWR Development. Ms. Laurence, in reviewing the financial terms summary from her presentation, noted that the terms encompassed not only the purchase price, but also the systems development charges (SDC), building permit fees, and any costs associated with vacating the alley adjacent to the site. She reported that, under the terms of the proposed agreement, WG Development would agree to pay $500,000 for the land and another $500,000 for the SDC’s, and that the City would be responsible for both building permit fees and any fees related to the alley vacation. Mr. Zelenka joined the meeting by phone at 12:15 p.m. MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Laurence continued to review the remainder of the proposed purchase and sale agreement for the benefit of the council, also noting that the due diligence period described therein ended on March 30, 2009, not March 30, 2008, as was listed in the materials distributed to the council. Ms. Laurence noted that the alley vacation listed as part of the proposed purchase and sale agreement would not be finalized during the work session, but that the application for the alley vacation would be presented to the council for their approval in the near future. Ms. Laurence proceeded to describe the parking characteristics of the development project, as well as the initial project timeline that was listed in her October 13, 2007, memo to the council. Additionally, Ms. Laurence noted that the permits for the project were to be submitted no later than November 30, 2009, with construction to begin within 30 days after permits were issued. Ms. Laurence noted that, according to projected timelines, permits for the development project were expected to be issued in February of 2010. Ms. Laurence described additional provisions from the proposed purchase and sale agreement, including the right to repurchase, the possible application of MUPTE or vertical housing tax exemptions, and BOLI prevailing wage determinations. Ms. Laurence restated the staff recommendation from the agenda item summary before briefing the council on the next steps of the project should the terms be approved as recommended. Ms. Laurence reported that staff had worked with Opus NW Development to suggest alternative sites for their proposed student-housing development project. She noted a letter from Opus Vice President John Bartell which expressed that none of the 14 alternative sites evaluated met the criteria for the development project Opus NW had th initially intended for the 10 and Charnelton site. She noted that Opus had investigated the possibility of acquiring th the north half block of the 10 and Charnelton site, but concluded that doing so would be significantly more expensive than the south half-block of the site that was to be developed by WG. Ms. Taylor commented that the WG Development project did not look promising to her. She requested clarification on the matter of prevailing wages under BOLI standards. Mr. Sullivan responded that prevailing wages would be determined by the BOLI commissioner with respect to whether or not the development project could be considered a public work. Mr. Sullivan added that the prevailing wage for the project would most likely be well above what was required by recently passed City ordinances. Ms. Taylor expressed that the right to repurchase clause of the agreement might be overly advantageous to WG Development, and was worried that the City might find itself right back where it started if the development on the site was somehow carried out improperly or untimely and the City needed to exercise the right to repurchase. Ms. Laurence responded that the right to repurchase clause was part of standard purchase and sale agreement language. Mr. Ruiz noted that the City wanted to maintain some sort of leverage against any developers to ensure that the projects were carried out in a proper and timely manner. Ms. Laurence reiterated that the $50,000 deposit paid by WG Development against the property would become non-refundable once the due diligence period had expired. Ms. Piercy recalled that the council had requested the right to repurchase be included in the proposed purchase and sale agreement so that the City could ensure that the property would not lay dormant and undeveloped for extended periods of time. Mr. Ruiz agreed with Ms. Piercy’s recollection. Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the parameters surrounding the right to repurchase as it had been proposed. She felt that the relatively small amount of the deposit WG had placed on the property did not leave the City in a strong enough position to ensure the swift development of the site, and also that the terms of the proposed purchase and sale agreement should be more specifically defined. MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated her opinion that the WG Development proposal was an overly speculative project to begin with, and that given recent economic downturns the council should seriously reconsider the Opus NWR Development proposal. Ms. Solomon, in addressing the BOLI prevailing wage and MUPTE tax exemption obstacles, noted that unfavorable determinations in either of those areas could ultimately kill the entire development project. She felt that it was highly important that the City investigate the matter more thoroughly before proceeding, perhaps even to the point where the prevailing wage and tax exemption determinations could be finalized before the approval of the purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Sullivan responded that the City would need a finalized purchase and sale agreement to present to the BOLI commissioner before the prevailing wage determination could be made. Mr. Zelenka asked how long the prevailing wage determination from BOLI would take once the final agreements had been submitted. Mr. Sullivan answered that the determination would take approximately 60 days. Ms. Sullivan, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the final draft purchase and sale agreement would need to be signed by all relevant parties no more than 30 days after it had been approved by the council. Mr. Zelenka asked if the proposed purchase and sale agreement specified timelines and procedures for termination by either the City or WG in the event that the BOLI determination was unfavorable. Mr. Sullivan answered that the firm property acquisition timeline listed in the purchase and sale agreement would be the timeline in which any such termination procedures would need to operate. Mr. Sullivan added that BOLI’s threshold requirement for making the prevailing wage determination was a finalized draft of the purchase and sale agreement, and that any termination of the project would subsequently be operating under the terms listed in the agreement. Mr. Ruiz asked if Mr. Zelenka was asking for some sort of pull-the-plug provision in the contract for the City where within a certain number of days after the BOLI determination all parties would be required to move forward as agreed. Mr. Zelenka answered that he did not want the City to be put in a position where WG would wait until the very end of the due diligence period only to withdraw from their commitments because of the prevailing wage determination. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Solomon’s position that the prevailing wage issue could ultimately kill the project. Mr. Sullivan responded to Mr. Zelenka’s comments by saying that some sort of short term trigger to terminate the project after the BOLI prevailing wage determination had been made would be a reasonable approach to take. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the repurchase price of the property would be the original purchase price paid by WG Development, $500,000, minus any forfeited deposits. She added that the repurchase price could be reduced depending on encumbrances or liens by no more than $450,000. Mr. Zelenka noted his support for the MUPTE tax exemption for the project, and stated he would be willing to revise the timeline for the project to provide an additional six months in the hopes that economic conditions might improve within that period. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the City should be willing to shift gears and open the site to other development proposals such as Opus NW should WG Development not proceed with the project in a timely and efficient manner. Ms. Ortiz asked for clarification of Mr. Zelenka’s comments regarding the BOLI prevailing wage determination, adding that she would prefer to stick with the current proposed timeline rather than providing for an additional six months. Mr. Clark inferred that what Mr. Zelenka wanted with regard to the purchase and sale agreement was a short window of time following the BOLI determination during which the City could ultimately veto the project. MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Clark asked what elements would need to be addressed by WG Development in the event the prevailing wage determination from BOLI was unfavorable. Mr. Sullivan answered that the labor costs to WG could change drastically as a result of the prevailing wage determination, and that the decision to proceed with increased labor costs would rest with WG Development. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s position that the City should attempt to protect its own interests should the prevailing wage matter not play out favorably to either party, but wanted to ensure that WG was given adequate time in which to proceed properly. Ms. Piercy agreed that the City should give WG Development adequate time to execute the project, but asked the council to consider keeping the Opus NW proposal on the table as a backup plan. Ms. Laurence, responding to a request for clarification regarding the project timeline from Ms. Bettman, noted that ten months had been added to the timeline of the project since its inception in order to allow for a more thorough negotiation of the purchase and sale agreement as well as a more realistic timeframe for the drafting of design and construction documentation. She added that the City had also needed additional time in which to address a number of elements such as the alley vacation and the MUPTE tax exemptions. Ms. Bettman felt that the additional time added to the project timeline was troublesome, and worried that the development project might eventually be forced to add even more time. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, answered that no firm date for completion of the project’s construction had been incorporated into the proposed purchase and sale agreement, but added that preliminary estimates indicated that construction would completed in July of 2011. Ms. Bettman restated that the WG Development project was overly speculative and wanted to keep the door open for Opus NW. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the Agency Director to a) th immediately cease negotiations with WG Development for the 10 and Charnelton development site; b) to work with WG Development on a different site for its project; and c) to negotiate with Opus NWR Development as quickly as practicable to set a sale of terms th for the sale and development of the 10 and Charnelton site and to bring an outline of those terms back to the Agency for review and approval. Ms. Bettman noted she recently had a conversation with representatives of Opus NWR and felt they were eager to proceed with the development of their proposed project for the site. Ms. Bettman maintained that the project timelines stated by Opus in their previously submitted proposal were more certain and less speculative. Mr. Sullivan commented that completion dates for the project were dependent on a number of factors including financing. He stated that the City’s goal would be to have as much of the financing issue settled with investors and lenders as possible to make the project proceed smoothly. Ms. Laurence and Mr. Sullivan, responding to request for clarification from Mr. Pryor, restated that the timelines for the WG Development project had been revised from their initial proposals, but that they had been changed with input and discussion from the City so that both parties’ various needs could be addressed. Mr. Pryor noted that WG’s willingness to work with the City to determine more reasonable timelines for the project had been instrumental to his position with regard to his vote on the approval of the purchase and sale agreement. He noted that while he had initially agreed with Ms. Bettman in her support of the Opus NWR proposal, the will of the council had been to choose the WG Development proposal instead and that as such he wanted to give WG the good faith opportunity to complete the project as they had proposed. MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor noted that while he continued to support the continued development relationship with WG Development, he was reluctant to support any further extensions to the project timelines. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend the discussion of the work session agenda item for an additional five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark indicated that while he had greater confidence in the financial health of Opus NWR as a developer and agreed with certain elements of Ms. Bettman’s position, he felt that the development of the project with WG was the best option for the City, particularly in light of the architectural merits of the proposed building as well as the strong level of public support for the WG Development proposal. He stated that he would not support Ms. Bettman’s motion. th Ms. Taylor commented that while she still hoped that the City might have turned the 10 and Charnelton site into a public park or community garden, she continued to prefer the WG Development project after listening to the concerns of the community. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Bettman’s previously stated motion. The motion failed, 2:6, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the Agency Director to enter into a th Purchase and Sale Agreement for the sale and development of the 10 and Charnelton development site consistent with the outline of terms included as Attachment A, and in the event that the URA would be unable to successfully execute an agreement by March 31, 2009, that the URA enter into negotiations with Opus NWR Development. Mr. Ruiz asked the Council to clarify the nature of Mr. Pryor’s motion with regard to the possibility of continued negotiations with Opus NWR. Mr. Pryor clarified, saying the motion directed further negotiations with Opus NWR only after March 31, 2009, and not before. Mr. Ruiz commented he was sensitive to the issue of timing with regard to continued negotiations with Opus NWR, and that it might be advisable to begin negotiating a backup plan with Opus NWR now instead of waiting for March 31. Mr. Pryor responded that, in the interest of fairness and good faith to WG Development, his motion was designed to specify a date on which to re-enter formal negotiations with Opus NWR, but that it would be acceptable if the City Manager’s office chose to proceed with informal negotiations with Opus NWR in the interim. Ms. Ortiz appreciated Mr. Pryor’s clarification of his motion, and noted her support of a continued development relationship with Opus NWR. Ms. Bettman indicated she would not support Mr. Pryor’s motion and restated her belief that the WG Development proposal was not a strong proposal to begin with. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Pryor’s previously stated motion. The motion passed, 7:1, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Zelenka in favor. Mr. Ruiz reminded Mr. Zelenka that no kind of trigger mechanism with which the project could be terminated was currently being incorporated into the purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Zelenka indicated he understood Mr. Ruiz’s statement. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the work session meeting of the City Council at 12:55 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 6 Work Session An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) and Amending Sections 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman presented an overview of the central tenets and history of the MUPTE program for the benefit of the council as well as an overview of the proposed amendments. A copy of Mr. Weinman’s presentation was submitted to the council with their agenda materials. Ms. Taylor was opposed to expanding the boundaries of the MUPTE program as indicated in Mr. Weinman’s presentation and believed the boundaries should be back to their original designations. She indicated that the most favorable option being presented was the proposed amendment to reduce the MUPTE boundary to the Downtown Plan Area, further stating her position that the Riverfront area should not be included in the revised boundary. Ms. Taylor stated that while she approved of the points system proposed for evaluating the MUPTE criteria, she felt it was too easy for developers to meet certain portions of the proposed criteria. Mr. Clark indicated that the discussion surrounding the MUPTE program was very interesting to him in that it highlighted the taxpayers’ willingness to accept a short term tax exemption versus the long term tax assessment viability of the properties in question. He reminded the council that while buildings under the MUPTE were tax exempt under the program for the short-term, the land on which the property existed was still taxable. Mr. Clark thanked staff for their work on determining the MUPTE evaluation criteria, and further noted that he was in favor of the proposed boundary options C and F as presented by Mr. Weinman. Mr. Clark maintained that the thth inclusion of the 6 and 7 Avenue corridor and Trainsong Neighborhood into the MUPTE was essential to the well- being of the community. Mr. Clark opposed the elimination of the West University Neighborhood from the MUPTE area boundaries, particularly since his recent conversations with University representatives indicated that there would be an enormous increase in the number of students over the coming years. Ms. Solomon felt that the MUPTE boundary options presented to the council did not need to be an either/or proposition with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of the Trainsong and West University Neighborhoods. She added that she was concerned that removing the West University Neighborhood from the MUPTE boundaries would encourage competition for housing between the Trainsong and West University Neighborhoods. Mr. Weinman, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, clarified the nature of the MUPTE approval criteria points system, noting that the Council was legally obligated to retain the final decision regarding property tax exemptions and that the points system was designed to aid the council in that regard. thth Mr. Poling stated he was in favor of including the 6 and 7 Avenue corridor and the Trainsong Neighborhood within the MUPTE boundaries, stating that its inclusion was vital to the continued prosperity of the area. Mr. Pryor felt that the points system for the MUPTE approval criteria would best be used as a set of flexible guidelines for the council to follow in making their decisions regarding MUPTE approval. He maintained that MUPTE applications, regardless of their scores within the approval criteria points system, should not automatically be approved without being first thoroughly reviewed by the council. He summarized saying he supported options C and F as outlined in the agenda item summary. thth Ms. Ortiz commented that there had not been a huge rush to develop properties within the 6 and 7 Avenue Corridor and Trainsong Neighborhood areas. She further noted that her conversations with residents of those neighborhoods had indicated that MUPTE exemptions would be helpful incentive to encourage responsible development in those areas. Mr. Zelenka noted he was in favor of option D of the proposed MUPTE boundary revisions, and further stated that it MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 7 Work Session was no longer necessary for the West University Neighborhood to remain within the MUPTE boundaries since it was such a highly desired location for University housing. Mr. Zelenka commented that there was no direct proof that MUPTE exemptions encouraged better development within the programs boundaries. Mr. Zelenka asked that the proposed language of the ordinance revision 2.945(8) be amended in order to preserve the council’s authority to overrule an application’s satisfaction of the MUPTE approval criteria. City Attorney Glen Klein noted that he had already made a note regarding that subsection and that the language in question would be revised in accordance with Mr. Zelenka’s concerns. Mr. Zelenka commented that the 100 point score necessary for MUPTE approval according to the proposed criteria seemed considerably low, noting that six of the nine proposed categories alone could garner the 100 points necessary for MUPTE approval. Mr. Weinman noted that staff had attempted to test the proposed MUPTE criteria against existing and proposed projects, and further noted that the scoring system could indeed be adjusted if the criteria did not prove to be stringent enough in its execution. Ms. Piercy commented that she had wrestled with the issues regarding the MUPTE for quite some time, and felt that the MUPTE was essential to the continued growth of the neighborhoods within its urban boundaries. Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Pryor that the MUPTE approval criteria points system should be used only as a guideline for the council and that it should retain its authority to make the final decisions regarding MUPTE applications. Ms. Piercy commented that it would be very important for the council to consider how the character of each neighborhood within the MUPTE boundaries would be affected by proposed developments. Ms. Bettman said tax exemptions such as the MUPTE should be used judiciously and as incentives to responsible property development rather than simply as a giveaway. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule action on Options C, D and F as listed on the agenda item summary which expands the boundary to include the Trainsong Neighborhood, revises the selection criteria, and eliminates the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute for Options C and F. Mr. Clark responded to Ms. Bettman’s previous comment by saying that it could not be considered a giveaway when the City was attempting to create jobs and foster similar economic growth by employing the MUPTE. He further stated that without the MUPTE in place there was little guarantee that properties would ever be developed or improved in the areas such as the West University Neighborhood. Ms. Taylor indicated she would not be supporting Mr. Clark’s motion, and further stated her belief that incentives such as the MUPTE often encouraged developers to tear down historic and non-tax exempt buildings in order to get a tax break by building something else. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion to substitute Options C and F. The motion passed, 5:3, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Solomon in favor. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on the motion that had been substituted with Options C and F in accordance with the previously passed motion. The motion passed, 5:3, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Solomon in favor. MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 8 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 27, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Ms. Piercy congratulated the Eugene Airport for receiving a first place award from the International Facility Management Association. She said an arts and business alliance had been launched and noted that the council was receiving an electronic emergency services report. She noted that a record 21,723 calls had been received and 12,192 patients were transported to medical facilities. She announced that Pam Berrian had received the 2008 Telecommunications Award. Ms. Bettman announced that Alan Jacobs was presenting a free lecture on boulevard design on November 5 and recommended attending to hear about effective transportation and economic development strategies for development on streets. Mr. Zelenka said the Fairmount neighbors and University of Oregon came to an agreement on the proposed basketball arena and thanked everyone who participated in the process. Mr. Clark reported that the Human Rights Commission was developing its work plan for the upcoming year. He attended the opening of Springfield’s Justice Center and said it was a beautiful facility. He inquired about the status of his request for a report on Creekside Park. Ms. Taylor said she heard that two people had already been excluded from downtown under the exclusion zone ordinance and wondered why the City did not just assign extra police to the area instead of excluding people. She asked what the City would do for a person who had been excluded for 90 days if they were ultimately found not guilty. City Attorney Jerome Lidz explained that although it was not a criminal process, it was similar to someone being arrested and then released if found not guilty or the charges were dismissed. Ms. Taylor asked if anyone was tracking where people went when they were excluded. City Manager Jon Ruiz said the police department was monitoring where people dispersed to downtown and in surrounding areas. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling reminded everyone to vote on November 4. He attended, along with Ms. Piercy, the ribbon- cutting ceremony for the Interstate 5 flyover. He was also awaiting a response to an inquiry on Creekside Park. Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Poling’s reminder to vote. He also attended the ceremony opening the new flyover and had recently returned from a visit to Eugene’s sister city of Kakegawa, Japan. He was very impressed by the bullet train as an efficient form of transportation. Ms. Piercy noted that when someone engaged in behavior defined in the ordinance they received a notice that they might be excluded from the downtown area, but that exclusion did not occur until that decision was made by a judge. Mr. Ruiz concurred that the basketball arena process was a good model of bringing concerned parties to the table to mitigate neighborhood concerns. He said the arts and business alliance was a positive coalition in the community. He took responsibility for decisions regarding the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic and asked people to direct their concerns to him, not the finance director. He said Assistant City Manager, Sarah Medary, would be initiating a community discussion about an affordable and accessible spay and neuter program. B. WORK SESSION: Whistleblower Protections Mary Walston, City Manager’s Office, referred to a summary of existing State and federal whistleblower protection laws prepared by the City Attorney. She said a municipal ordinance from Seattle, Washington, was also referenced. She noted in 2002 the charter review committee had considered the issue and there was some discussion of holding a work session, but the council voted not to go forward with it. She said the agenda item summary included a list of questions that would need to be answered should the council wish to move forward with an ordinance. She asked City Attorney Jerome Lidz to address the legal framework of whistleblower protections. Mr. Lidz cited current State law that made it an unlawful employment practice for a public employer to retaliate against anyone who reported certain actions or discourage employees from reporting those activities. He said enforcement was by the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). He asked what problem the council wanted to address and what it wanted the City to do that was different than State law. He cautioned that the City’s process could not be interposed between the whistleblower and BOLI by requiring the person to go through the City first, although it could make an avenue available to register those concerns with the City voluntarily. He said the 2002 discussion could be translated into an ordinance, but again cautioned that the process would need to be voluntary. Ms. Bettman said whistleblower protection would foster integrity in the organization. She asked what steps an employee would take to report a violation to BOLI and how many complaints had been lodged in the last five years. Mr. Lidz said he did not know the number of complaints that had been lodged. If an employee wished to complain, they would obtain a form from BOLI to complete and submit. Ms. Bettman asked if the City had any documentation of complaints or retaliation. Ms. Walston said she was not aware of a central record; complaints were typically referred to Human Resources or department heads and she did not have access to that data. City Manager Jon Ruiz indicated that in his experience employees pursued complaints in different ways; complaints were reported through the chain of command, MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 2 Work Session or if that was not feasible, higher in the chain of command or directly to the personnel office. He said at whatever point a complaint was filed there was an obligation to investigate it. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any record of complaints of retaliation being filed with BOLI. Mr. Ruiz said there would be a record of any complaints filed with the City, but he was not certain what obligation BOLI had to report to the City and complaints filed directly with it. Mr. Poling was also interested in the number of instances of employee whistleblowing and any instances of retaliation. He asked how a local ordinance would be administered. Ms. Walston said that would be an issue for the council to discuss if it wished to pursue an ordinance. Mr. Poling asked if there was any information on the cost to Seattle to administer their program and whether a local program would be able to remedy a complaint any more quickly or efficiently than the State or federal process. Mr. Ruiz felt that it would be more efficient for the City to investigate and act on a complaint, with or without an ordinance, than for an employee to go through the State or federal process. Mr. Poling asked if there was anything preventing a City employee currently from bypassing his or her supervisor and taking a complaint to the department head or City Manager. Mr. Ruiz said that option was open to employees and he had a responsibility to investigate complaints. Mr. Poling felt that the current whistleblower provisions were adequate and employees could circumvent supervisors if necessary. He did not want another layer of government to clutter up the system when what was already in place was working. Mr. Zelenka said the City’s policy and procedures manual for employees should, at a minimum, reiterate State law and describe the procedure an employee should follow if he or she felt one of the violations had occurred. He did not think most employees would have any idea what to do with that information. Mr. Ruiz agreed that if the subject was not covered in the manual it should be, whether or not there was an ordinance. He said that retaliation should also be addressed. Mr. Lidz noted that there were two different issues: one was related to employees feeling comfortable raising an issue of mismanagement or abuse of authority and how to do that; the other was how to deal with retaliation as a result of raising an issue. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling that unless there was a compelling shortcoming in the State statute that was not being addressed, there was no need for a municipal ordinance. He concurred with educating employees to ensure they understood the process for filing a complaint, but was not certain about whether the City needed to further address retaliation. Mr. Pryor said his concern was whether there were any gaps in the current system that the City needed to fill with local provisions. He said identifying gaps could be part of the charge to staff if the council decided to move forward on the issue. Ms. Taylor supported the concept of a local ordinance and pointed to the renters’ rights program as an example of how local ordinances provided people better access to a complaint process. She said that retaliation was often difficult to prove. She asked to see a copy of the 2002 discussion on whistleblowing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Piercy commented that it might be a matter of formalizing the existing process. She said it would be helpful to obtain information about complaints that had been filed in order to fairly assess the current situation and determine what course of action to take. Ms. Bettman said her research had indicated that many communities had whistleblower ordinances and protections and those programs were useful resources for developing a local ordinance. She described various approaches used in other communities. Mr. Zelenka asked for five items from staff to inform the council’s discussion and decision: ? A description of the State process, how onerous it was and how it actually worked ? Proposed language for the policies and procedures manual describing State and federal laws and the process for filing complaints ? Statistics on complaints filed with the State from Eugene City employees over the past decade or two ? The language proposed by the charter review committee and a summary of the committee’s discus- sion rationale ? Information on ordinances from other communities Mr. Poling agreed with the need for clear language describing existing protections and the process for filing complaints. He did not want to downplay the importance of whistleblower provisions, but felt the State and federal protections currently in place were sufficient, otherwise the council would be hearing from employees and unions about problems with the complaint process or retaliation. Ms. Solomon arrived at 6:20 p.m. Ms. Bettman cited a 2007 report by the Ethics Resource Center that concluded government employees were working in environments that were conducive to misconduct and intervention programs to improve ethical behavior were uncommon. She said local governments had the highest levels of observed misconduct and experienced the lowest level of reporting. She asserted that there was a perceivable culture of not feeling safe in the City organization according to some people and that meant efficiencies went unreported. She thought the State probably had a very high threshold for what counted as malfeasance. She did not think statistics or the lack thereof was an accurate indicator of whether or not there was a problem. Ms. Walston maintained the City had a strong ethics ordinance and the union had an active grievance policy and those could be emphasized in the employee handbook. Ms. Piercy said the information requested by Mr. Zelenka would be very helpful to the council. Mr. Ruiz said the agenda item summary represented neither support nor lack of support for an issue; he said staff was not always certain what information the council desired or what outcome was intended for a work session and the new form would help avoid that in the future and assure that staff did not spend time on research that was not of interest. He said there was value in having a formal policy related to whistleblower complaints. As City Manager, he would see that one was established if it did not already exist and share that information with the council. He remarked that there were differences between illegal activities and inefficiencies and if an inefficiency was reported it would be investigated because what was perceived as inefficient by one person might be perceived as a legitimate way to do business by another and it was important to close the loop. He asked for clear guidance from this council on its expectations of what staff would bring back for consideration as there did not appear to be consensus on the issue of an ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Piercy felt that before councilors could determine if ordinance language was required they needed additional information, particularly about ordinances in other communities and what the City’s current process was. Mr. Pryor agreed with the Mr. Zelenka’s request for information. He thought it was important to assure that people were educated about the current mechanism. Ms. Bettman said she wanted staff to list the different components of all the ordinances, compare them to State and federal laws and process and identify gaps in coverage. She was not certain how the union grievance procedure related to the complaint process and wanted assurance it protected employees from retaliation. She reiterated that employees did not feel safe speaking out. Ms. Piercy remarked that it would be necessary to obtain the agreement of the council for that type of research. Mr. Clark was concerned with the discussion of potential retaliation and wanted to know how the State and federal processes addressed that issue in order to determine what remedies the City might wish to put in place. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct staff to return to the coun- cil with the following information: ? A description of State and federal laws and processes, including the step-by- step process for filing a claim ? Suggested language for the policies and procedures manual that described how the process worked ? Statistics at the State and local level for the last decade or two regarding com- plaints from the City ? Language from the charter review committee ? Ordinances from other communities around the country and a summary of how they differed from the City’s process Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to include information about specific protections for employees and whether they were enforceable. Mr. Zelenka ac- cepted the amendment. The motion as amended passed, 7:0. Ms. Piercy announced that the council would take action on two items from the regular meeting agenda. C. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the July 14, 2008, Work Session; July 16, 2008, Work Session; September 15, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting; September 17, 2008, Work Session; September 22, 2008, Work Session; September 24, 2008, Work Session; October 7, 2008, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews; October 14, 2008, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor noted they had submitted minutes corrections. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 5 Work Session The motion passed: 7:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to take action on appointments to board and commissions at the work session. Ms. Taylor objected to taking action at the work session as people were expecting the council to act at the previously announced time and requested a legal opinion. Mr. Lidz said the council’s practice had been that if an item was on the agenda it could decide to take action on it. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor. He said there was a possibility that someone might come to the 7:30 p.m. meeting to watch the process or speak at the public forum on the issue and the council should adhere to its published agenda. Mr. Pryor said in most instances he would not want to deviate from the agenda, but he perceived appoint- ments to boards and commissions as more of an internal process and did not object to moving ahead. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Clark voting no. D. ACTION: Appointments to Board, Commissions, and Committees Budget Committee Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Mary Ann Holser to Posi- tion 1 on the Budget Committee for a two-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2010. Mr. Clark moved to substitute Doug Smith for Position 1. There was no second. The motion to appoint Mary Ann Holser passed, 6:1; Mr. Clark voting no. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Joseph Potwora to Position 3 on the Budget Committee, the unexpired term of Robert Peters, for a term begin- ning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2009. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute Doug Smith for Position 3. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Jon Barofsky to Position 4 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2011. The motion passed, 7:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Joseph Potwora to Position 5 on the Budget Committee, the unexpired term of John Demboski, for a term be- ginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2009. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute Deanna Kilger for Po- sition 5. The motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to substitute Sandra Ludeman for Position 5. Mr. Clark commented that the assignment of individuals to particular terms seemed arbitrary and he preferred to appoint Mr. Potwora to Position 6. He asked if the chair intended to move to appoint Mr. Potwora to another position if he was not appointed to Position 5. Mr. Pryor said the appointments were based on the number of votes and the particular term was subject to debate. He was taking names in ranked order. The motion to substitute Sandra Ludeman failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman and Mr. Zelenka voting yes. The motion to appoint Joseph Potwora passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Noah Kamrat to Position 6 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2011. Ms. Taylor moved to substitute Deanna Kilger for Position 6. There was no sec- ond. The motion to appoint Noah Kamrat passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Clark voting no. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reappoint Claire Syrett to Position 8 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2011. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Clark vot- ing no. Human Rights Commission Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint the slate of nominations as presented in the agenda to the Human Rights Commission, unless there was a spe- cific substitution. The motion passed, 7:0. Planning Commission Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reappoint Randall Hledik to Posi- tion 2 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2012. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to substitute Mark Baker for Posi- tion 2. The motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka voting yes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 7 Work Session The motion to appoint Randall Hledik passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Jeffry Mills to Position 3 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2012. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to substitute Mark Baker for Posi- tion 3. The motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka voting yes. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to substitute Sarah Whitney for Po- sition 3. The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The motion to appoint Jeffrey Mills passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor vot- ing no. Toxics Board Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Diana Bollenbaugh to Po- sition 3, a business representative on the Toxics Board, for a three-year term begin- ning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2011. The motion passed, 7:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Elizabeth Weaver to Posi- tion 6, an advocacy representative on the Toxics Board, for a three-year term be- ginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2011. The motion passed, 7:0. Historic Review Board Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint the slate of nominations as presented in the agenda to the Historic Review Board. The motion passed, 7:0. Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reappoint David Monk to Position 4 on the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Board of Directors for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and expiring October 31, 2011. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Clark voting no. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reappoint Hillary Loud to Position 4 on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission for a three-year term beginning February 1, 2009, and ending January 31, 2012. The motion passed, 7:0. Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint the slate of nominations as presented in the agenda to the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee. The motion passed, 7:0. Police Commission Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Jon Belcher to Position 9 on the Police Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2008, and ending October 31, 2011. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 27, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that the council had addressed items 2 (Consent Calendar) and 4 (Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees) at the earlier work session. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy recognized City Manager Jon Ruiz to discuss the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic. City Manager Ruiz acknowledged the importance of the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic to the community. He suggested the actual question for the community was how best to provide an affordable, easily accessible, and robust spay and neuter program for residents. He said a community forum on the subject of the City’s role in providing spay and neuter services and how those services could be provided safely and effectively would occur on November 6 at the Washington Park Community Center from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Zachary Vishanoff commended Councilor Bettman for her recommendation for whistle blower protections. He shared his own experience with the police and the justice system in support of his suggestion for a “ten- year roundup” of all retaliation against City staff members or members of the public who were retaliated against by the “machine.” Mr. Vishanoff then asserted that Councilor Zelenka and City Manager Ruiz lied about the nature of the University of Oregon basketball arena “model” process. He averred the process had been closed and leveled conflict of interest charges against the neighborhood leaders who participated in those meetings due to the fact one was an architectural professor at the University and the other was a real estate agent. Mr. Vishanoff asked the City Manager why the meetings were closed, the “rationale for finding consensus behind closed doors,” and the reason minutes of the proceedings were not taken. He noted the decision of the Hearings Official in regard to the arena could be appealed to the City Planning Commission and then to the Land Use Board of Appeals, two processes which he considered significant hurdles. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting Rita Castillo , 6825 F Street, a Springfield resident, shared information with the council that indicated two cats could produce 240,000 kittens in seven years. She said she was a volunteer at the Lane Council Animal Regulation Authority (LCARA) and while volunteering she saw many people who used the Spay and Neuter Clinic but were disappointed because they arrived too late in the day to take advantage of its services. She asked those present to stand if they were there to speak on the issue of spaying and neutering. Many in the audience did so. She also asked those present to indicate if they participated in rescue activities. Many stood. th Deb Frisch , 3003 West 11 Avenue, Eugene, criticized Councilor Zelenka for his attendance at council meetings since the council’s decision to grant the University of Oregon’s alley vacation application. She announced she would be presenting her justification for requesting his resignation the following day. She also announced the upcoming Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) hearing on the arena appeal on November 13 at 9:00 a.m. in Salem. Ms. Frisch criticized Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds for leaking information to the press. She thought Ms. Reynolds should resign as soon as possible. She criticized the Crest-Storey-Friendly area residents for their opposition to bicycle paths on the streets to be renovated. Cynthia Kokis , 2465 Jefferson Street, Eugene, was opposed to the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic. She did not want to have to attend a later hearing to say why she opposed it. She complained that when she arrived in the area in 1973 many things used to be free and there was something for everyone. Now there was no lack of low-income people but everyone had to pay for everything. She suggested that those most hurt by the clinic’s closure were unable to attend the meeting because they were dependent on mass transit, were unaware of the proposal, or had to work. Daniel Cooper , Eugene, discussed his experience as an LTD rider. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, Eugene, representing the Southeast Neighbors, opposed the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic. She criticized staff for making the proposal and asked staff to explain how it was a sound idea. Ms. Warnes asserted that there were fees that completely offset the shortfall. She also asserted cutting the program would cost the City through an increase in unwanted pets. She said even if the closure of the clinic actually saved money, the closure lacked humanity and ethics. She urged the council to reverse the staff decision. Dr. Patricia Shea , PO Box 40314, Eugene, opposed the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic. She believed its closure would have an adverse effect on residents and their pets. Poor people have pets and if they are unvaccinated and non-neutered they create a public health hazard and consume public and private resources. She thought the clinic a valuable service that should be maintained and the City should pass an ordinance that would force residents to spay and neuter their pets. She said such a precedent existed in California and Eugene could set a precedent for this in Oregon. Such an ordinance would give LCARA more jurisdictional options to deal with animal collectors, backyard breeders, and irresponsible pet owners. Dr. Ann Samsell , 30075 La Bleu Road, Eugene, a former employee of the clinic, opposed the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic. She said the community previously had three components needed to deal with animal-related complaints: comprehensive laws and strong enforcement, an education program, and a spay/neuter program. For the clinic to be effective it must be easy to access, work closely with public regulation, and provide services at a low cost. The clinic was well established. It had drastically reduced unwanted and problem animals and served those who could not afford private veterinary services. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting pointed out the clinic served to reduce the number of unwanted animals and urged the council to keep the clinic open. th Katherine Ford , 75 West 35 Place, Eugene, representing the Willamette Animal Guild (WAG), opposed the closure of the clinic. She maintained that the clinic formerly showed a profit and asked how it could now be in deficit. She demanded “some real figures” as she saw no rental, utility, or janitorial expenses reflected in the budget. She demanded to know where the money was going. th Joan Walter , 220 East 36 Avenue, Eugene, submitted and reviewed written testimony opposing the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic. th Jill Winans , 75 West 35 Place, Eugene, representing the Willamette Animal Guild Spay and Neuter Project, said the recently opened WAG spay and neuter clinic was not intended to supplant the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic but rather to augment it to make inroads into the problem of excessive pet populations. She spoke of the high number of stray cats in the community and said the spread of stray cats could only be stopped by spaying and neutering. She had issues with the costs cited in the memorandum authored by staff. She submitted prices she had secured from private clinics that demonstrated no one offered lower prices than the City clinic except WAG, which was running on a deficit. The contemplated vouchers would not go far. She asked the council to take action to keep the clinic open. Dr. Sally Cogenie , 27333 Old River Road, Lowell, a clinic employee, said the employees were being lost in the discussion. She commended the quality and work of the employees. She said that the clinic served residents on their schedule and those served were grateful for it. She said closing the clinic would be a disservice to the community, and she asked the council to reconsider the decision. st Scott Bartlett , 1445 East 21 Avenue, Eugene, spoke of the initial formation of LCARA. He believed more animals would die if the Spay and Neuter Clinic was closed and more animals would sicken and die in the streets. He found it “unbelievable” a budget staff person could have proposed the closure, and demanded a public hearing where residents could offer their opinions. Joe Collins , PO Box 24411, Eugene, said not one more dollar for street repairs should be spent. He praised the involvement of the Crest area neighbors in the road project in their neighborhood. Mr. Collins questioned why there were no road repairs over the past summer, particularly on the roads he regularly traveled. However, Roosevelt Boulevard, which he had used only twice in his 15 years of residence, was being repaired. He suggested that repair was attributable to the fact that wealthy people were thinking of building there with the assistance of tax breaks granted by the City Council. He suggested the council had directed staff to avoid repairs to “main thoroughfares” as a means to retaliate against citizens who opposed the last road repair measure and to blackmail citizens into voting for the bond measure. Mr. Collins went on to assert that the City Council regularly gave tax breaks to wealthy developers and downtown developers and expected the rest of the citizens to pay their taxes and the taxes of those individuals as well. Speaking to the proposed closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic, Mr. Collins said he watched Animal Planet and knew how dedicated the people who supported the animals were. Nancy Sautell , 40177 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, praised the staff at the Spay and Neuter Clinic for their support in the past year because of the number of people who dropped cats and dogs off near her family’s property. It had been an enormous financial and emotional burden for her family. She could never have afforded to spay and neuter 30 feral cats without the assistance of the clinic. The clinic was essential to stopping unwanted litters. Those who wanted to be responsible pet owners would not have the means to MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting neuter or spay their pets, particularly in a time of economic downturn, if the clinic closed. She said such dumped pets had a negative impact on wildlife as well, particularly migratory birds. She urged the council to keep the clinic open. Dawn Nelson , 77 Somerset Court, Eugene, opposed the closure of the clinic. She felt the City had lost sight of the clinic’s original purpose, which was to help address pet overpopulation problems. She maintained the clinic was not intended to be self-sufficient in order to keep costs low for the public; in turn, the City would experience lower costs for other animal-related issues. She believed that without the clinic, the population of pets in Lane County would have doubled. The organizations that provided low-cost spay and neuter services were volunteer-driven and such entities often failed. She suggested that the issue for many was not about the bottom line. Ian Howard , 1654 Fairmount Boulevard, Eugene, represented the University of Oregon Community Resource Assistance Program. He reviewed the organization’s goals and provided his contact information. Carol Berg Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, Eugene, commended the youth who gave up their Saturdays to attend the recent Prevention Convention event hosted by the Eugene Police Department. She suggested the community think about ways to include the police in future community events as a way to build ties. Dr. Janette Kessler , 27242 Briggs Hill Road, Eugene, owner of the Emergency Veterinarian Clinic in Springfield, opposed the closure of the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic. She asked the council to avoid raising fees at the clinic because many residents could not afford them. What some considered a low-cost service was difficult for many to afford. She also asked the council to find a long-term solution to the issue of clinic funding. Dr. Marilyn Waters , 1345 Barrington Street, Eugene, worked at the Spay and Neuter Clinic as a veterinarian one day a week. She said the clinic’s clients were not the same clients she would see at her private practice and estimated that 40 percent of the clients did not see a veterinarian regularly and used the clinic as their sole service provider. She said that her clinic’s surgery prices were four times higher than the prices at the Spay and Neuter Clinic. She agreed with Dr. Kessler about the need for a long-term solution. th Karen Church , 220 East 36 Avenue, Eugene, shared her experience as a former animal control officer. She worked at the clinic now and said it was completely full due to the no-kill philosophy, which would only work if the spay and neuter services were provided. All the public and private nonprofit service providers needed to do 300 surgeries a week to keep pet population numbers where they were now. She asked the council to think creatively to reach a funding solution. Gary Gillespie , 2644 Kincaid Street, Eugene, shared information about his own pets, which he had spayed and neutered at the clinic. He urged the council to find a way to save the clinic. Blu Wagner , 22 Frall Lane, Eugene, opposed the closure of the City’s Spay and Neuter Clinic. She thought the recommendation to close the clinic was tragically short-sighted and asked the council to keep the clinic open and aggressively recruit a new veterinarian. She hoped the issue never came up again, and said she would be happy to pay more in property taxes to keep the clinic open. Lou Sinnegar , 25416 Irene Street, Elmira, represented the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and spoke on behalf of the employees that would be affected by the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic. He said that City Manager Ruiz had indicated no employees would be laid off if the clinic closed and he was committed to a collaborative solution with the community, the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting stakeholders, and the union. He asserted that the closure was a policy decision, not a management decision. He asked the council to let all the affected groups work together to find a solution. Robert Olson , 32810 Sisters Loop, Eugene, suggested that one needed to consider both the efficiency and equity of the decision to close the clinic. He suggested that in terms of efficiency, it was cheaper to run the clinic than to trap and euthanize animals. In terms of justice or fairness, it was better to have the clinic than to allow animals to run loose and become carriers of disease. Laura Cino , 4427 Fox Hollow Road, #6, Eugene, said that people wanted to take care of their animals and do the right thing but they have no money and few alternatives. She feared that people would stop doing what was right if the clinic was no longer open. She acknowledged the WAG clinic but said no other clinics offered vaccines without an exam fee or individual doses of flea medication. Cathy Lacki , 77 Somerset Court, an employee of the Spay and Neuter Clinic, clarified that she was speaking as a private citizen. She noted the other employees of the clinic present at the hearing and said they knew how important the issue was. She thanked the council for listening and thanked the clinic’s supporters for their advocacy. She thought there was a way to keep the clinic open, and pointed out it had been a long- term community resource without a gap in services. She wanted to continue that into the future. Lisa Wahl , 4570 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, opposed the closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic and spoke of the many benefits of spaying and neutering one’s pets. She advocated for more spending on the clinic, not less. Audrey Walther , 350 Marche Chase Drive, #162, Eugene, shared her personal experience with a stray cat and its kittens and advocated for keeping the Spay and Neuter Clinic open. She opposed the closure of the clinic while its future was being discussed. Starly Pupke , 28364 Restwell Road, Eugene, opposed the closure of the clinic because of the cat over- population problem. She suggested that prices be reduced instead of raised so that those who needed the services, and could least afford it, could secure them. She said that many rescue groups use the services of the clinic. They need the price breaks because of the burden they carry, which saves the community additional animal control expenses. She suggested that City payments to LCARA could be diverted to the clinic. She said that many people took advantage of the fact they could use the service on their own terms. Misha Solan , 91 Alberta Lane, Eugene, opposed the closure of the clinic. He said the financial conse- quences of the clinic’s closure would be staggering and the burden would be felt by all. As a farmer, he often found stray cats on his property and had 18 cats to-date neutered out of his own pocket at the clinic. He asked the council to find a way to keep the clinic open. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and thanked all those who spoke. She was concerned about even a temporary closure of the Spay and Neuter Clinic while the City worked on long-term solutions and suggested the City take advantage of the knowledge and expertise of those in the audience. She suggested the clinic’s funding be part of the City’s discussion regarding service provision with Lane County. She asked City Manager Ruiz if there was a way to avoid closing and restarting the clinic. Councilor Taylor thanked all those who spoke. She said the council did not make the decision to close the clinic and she hoped the manager could find a way to keep it open. She agreed it is difficult to restart a service once it has been eliminated. She concurred with those who spoke of the cost-savings realized by the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting clinic, as well as its ability to provide humane treatment and help create a safer environment for the community. Councilor Bettman also thanked all those who spoke. She expressed concern about the message being sent to the public about the closure and wanted to settle the issue as soon as possible to give the public certainty about the future of the clinic. She asked if the clinic was funded through the end of the current fiscal year, and if surgeries could be performed if the veterinarian was medically incapacitated. Finance Director Dee Ann Raile responded that the clinic was in the fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget and there was an appropriation that the City would exceed based on its financial experience to date. Currently, the City had only one veterinarian and this person was unable to perform surgeries because of a medical condition. The City had not been successful in recruiting a veterinarian and was performing surgeries about half the time with backfill staff, many of whom had offered testimony at this meeting. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Raile clarified that the City would overspend the budget allocation within the fiscal year and could, if so directed, return to the council with a supplemental budget to increase the appropriation. Councilor Bettman compared the clinic to potholes, saying the City could pay a lower price now or a higher price later. She asked to be recognized later in the meeting in order to offer the council a motion to keep the clinic open and find a veterinarian pending resolution of the larger budget issue. Councilor Clark thanked all those who spoke. He suggested there were probably creative solutions to the clinic’s funding problems. He expressed appreciation to the manager for his effort to this point. He agreed that the decision was more of a policy issue than a management one but he continued to seek more information. Councilor Zelenka commended those who offered testimony for their thoughtful and concise testimony. He was also concerned about the closure of the clinic as he thought the short-term costs were outweighed by the long-term benefits. He said earlier that day, he had asked the manager for suggestions about how to keep the clinic open. He agreed that the decision seemed to be more of a policy than management decision. Speaking to Mr. Vishanoff’s comments, Councilor Zelenka said the Neighborhood-University Arena Liaison Committee was not a City-sponsored group. It was sponsored by the University, which had invited the City’s participation. The City does not provide notice for meetings in which it participates but does not sponsor. Additionally, the meetings were open to the public and minutes were taken. Councilor Zelenka advocated for those present and in the viewing audience to vote yes on the street repair ballot measure. Councilor Solomon thanked those present for their testimony. She also thanked Michelle Haus of her ward for all the times she called to tell Councilor Solomon what was going on with unwanted animals on her street. Ms. Haus, like many others, took unwanted animals to the clinic to have them altered. She made a difference in the community. Councilor Solomon appreciated the time Ms. Haus spent with her on the telephone and asked her to keep up the good work. Councilor Solomon asked those present and in the viewing audience to vote yes on the City’s street repair ballot measure. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling expressed appreciation for the tenor of the comments the council heard. He had experience with unwanted and abandoned animals as a farmer and was interested in knowing more about a supplemen- tal budget appropriation or the potential of using contingency funds to keep the clinic open through the end of the fiscal year to give the council time to consider its funding. Mr. Pryor also thanked those who spoke and commended the respectful and civil tone of their testimony. City Manager Ruiz also expressed appreciation for the remarks that were made. He acknowledged the passion for the issue. Mr. Ruiz said that Ms. Raile had taken considerable heat for the decision but he was the responsible party. Based on the input he heard, City Manager Ruiz thought the City would keep the clinic open. However, how spay and neuter services were provided was a different conversation about closing the clinic. The pet overpopulation problem, even after 30 years of a City-operated spay and neuter clinic, had not been solved. Subsequently, City Manager Ruiz advocated for a new and different conversation that attempted to get at the root cause of pet overpopulation and solutions that made an inroad into the problem. Noting the calls in testimony for long-term solutions, City Manager Ruiz encouraged such a long-term approach. With regard to the clinic employees, City Manager Ruiz said that the issue was not about laying off employees but about how to provide the best service. He had committed to Mr. Sinnegar that he would not lay off employees and they would continue to be City of Eugene employees if the clinic maintained operations as a City facility. He reiterated that merely keeping the clinic open was not the long-term solution. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to City Manager Ruiz for his remarks. Councilor Bettman expressed regret that Ms. Raile had been demonized in the process and appreciated the manager’s comments about taking responsibility. She expressed appreciation to Ms. Raile for the work she did. Councilor Bettman also agreed that the decision was a policy decision and not a management decision. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to con- tinue to provide the spay and neuter services provided by the clinic, including increased efforts to secure a veterinarian to perform surgeries, to convene a process with stakeholders to inform a strategy for the FY10 budget and long-term solutions, and to return to the council with a sup- plemental budget. Councilor Zelenka expressed appreciation to Ms. Raile for the work she did. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman advocated for the police auditor oversight measure and Lane Community College bond measure. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes July 14, 2008, Work Session July 16, 2008, Work Session September 15, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting September 17, 2008, Work Session September 22, 2008, Work Session September 24, 2008, Work Session October 7, 2008, Boards and Commissions Interviews October 14, 2008, Boards and Commissions Interviews B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda This item was addressed at the earlier work session. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the 1999 Street Classification Map and Classifying all the Streets in the Crest Drive Area as Local Streets or An Ordinance Amending the 1999 Street Classification Map and Classifying Portions of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street as Neighborhood Collectors and the Remaining Streets in the Crest Drive Area as Local Streets City Engineer Mark Schoening was present to make the staff report. He recalled the public hearing held the week before on the classification issue. He said the council had been provided with two ordinances to choose between. Whatever decision the council made tonight, the design approved by the council in April 2008 would not be affected, and neither would the speed limit or traffic calming methodology. Responding to a question from Councilor Clark about the legality of the proposed approach under State and City law and any potential unintended consequences, such as to City snow plowing regimes, Mr. Schoening indicated he perceived no problem. Councilor Pryor noted the two ordinances before the council and suggested that regardless of which was approved, in a real world sense, things would be the same. He preferred to honor the neighborhood process that had been followed to this point, so would offer the first motion to the council. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Council Bill 4991, an ordi- nance amending the 1999 Street Classification Map and classifying all of the streets in the crest Drive Area as local streets. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to substitute Council Bill 4992, an ordinance amending the 1999 Street Classification Map and classifying portions of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Streets as Neighborhood Collectors and the remain- ing streets in the Crest Drive Area as Local Streets. Councilor Bettman indicated opposition to the substitute motion. She thought it would be unforgivable to pull the rug out from under the neighborhood after all the work that had been done. Councilor Bettman suggested the City consider adding another classification to the Arterial and Collector Street Plan to account for such exceptions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon pointed out that the neighborhood was getting the design it wanted. She said that if the numbers indicated that a street was a neighborhood collector, the street should be classified as a neighbor- hood collector. She was concerned about the City’s exposure to legal liability as a result of the first motion, and thought it set a bad precedent for other neighborhoods. Councilor Zelenka asked how many unclassified streets were in the city. Mr. Schoening said that only the streets in the Crest Drive area remained unclassified. The entire area was left unclassified pending the outcome of the neighborhood process. Councilor Zelenka asked about the nature of staff’s discussions with the neighborhood about the street classifications. Mr. Schoening said that the neighbors believed the collector designation called for a certain design. He said the staff and residents struggled with the issue of the classification throughout the process, and put it aside until the design was completed. He emphasized that staff never promised any particular classification to the neighbors. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Schoening said the three routes in question were all snowplowed. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Schoening reiterated that the street design would be the same regardless of tonight’s decision. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Solomon about the analysis and indicated he would support the motion. Councilor Clark wanted to support the public process. While he was sympathetic to the residents, he was also sensitive to Councilor Solomon’s point about the precedent being set. Mr. Schoening thought there was a fairly low risk of the action setting precedent, noting that no other neighborhood had pursued such a course. He pointed out that the neighborhood in question was on the edge of the urban growth boundary, so there was not as much consequence to having a disconnected system as there might be in other areas of the community. City Attorney Jerome Lidz did not have a concern about legal precedent; he suggested the issue was one of political and policy precedence. Councilor Taylor thought that if the council did not classify the streets as local it would be a betrayal of trust. She said the original motion was consistent with the council’s previous direction, and if the residents were aware of the second option they would have been present at the meeting. She said that if the classification did not make a difference, why do something the residents did not want? Mayor Piercy believed that the council had indicated a commitment to the local street classification to residents. She supported the local classification. The substitute motion failed, 5:2; councilors Solomon and Zelenka voting yes. The original motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 9 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Action on the item was taken at the work session. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 27, 2008 Page 10 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT H M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 29, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor. George Poling and Alan Zelenka participated by telephone. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:03 p.m. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Parking Jeff Petry, Parking Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), provided a presentation on downtown parking beginning with the City installing downtown parking meters in 1939 and the creation of the downtown parking exempt zone in 1948. He said the City of Eugene had converted from a customer-paid/meter system to a free parking system in 1972, and the expenses associated with the parking program were paid with business and downtown district taxes. He related that due to changes in the downtown business dynamics, and Ballot Measure 5, the City had switched back to a customer-paid program in 1992. He noted that the City had also instituted the first-hour and weekends-free policy for the three City-owned garages and the business validation program at that time. Mr. Petry reviewed the revenue and expenses of the parking program. He noted that the City spent $180,000 to maintain its structures in 2007 and was projected to spend almost $1 million on maintenance in the next fiscal year. He said the Parking Enterprise Fund was intended to be self-sufficient. He stated that the program currently had $4.8 million in revenue and $4.7 million in expenses, a $100,000 surplus, but a more long-term view indicated that the capital needs would deplete reserve funds within three years. Mr. Petry explained that the downtown area was a parking exempt zone; businesses were not required to provide minimum parking standards. He said staff had met with downtown business owners a few weeks earlier and had also met with Chamber of Commerce representatives, and members of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI), earlier in the year. He reported that top level feedback was that there was a lack of information about, and understanding of, the parking system. He cited, as an example, that the hours during which meters must be used were set by the businesses adjacent to them and a business could call parking services to come and adjust the meter time for more or fewer hours. He related that business owners were also concerned about the lack of parking in the downtown area. He said the narrow street widths precluded having angled parking, which would accommodate more cars. He noted that another concern expressed had to do with people monopolizing parking spaces by feeding the meters. He explained that City code prohibited individuals from doing so, but this regulation was only enforced on a complaint basis. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 29, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Continuing, Mr. Petry discussed some of the parking service practices of communities in other areas. He said the question was what constituted a good parking program. He related that the City of Eugene was considered good because of its mission: to supply, allocate and manage adequate, safe parking to meet the parking needs of the business and residential communities in a manner that supports transportation system needs, growth management policies and goals, and City Council and community goals. He stated that parking staff was working with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to provide electric car charging stations in the downtown area and in parking garages. He said the technology was now available for people to pay for parking via their cell phones. He also noted that the two development projects that were planned would bring the downtown parking to capacity. Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for the work Mr. Petry had done on the presentation. Mr. Clark said he had sought to hold this work session to discuss the metered parking in the downtown core area only. He wanted the discussion to be about how to make the downtown a more inviting and convenient place for people to visit. He asked for data relevant to only the on-street meters in the public safety zone. Mr. Petry responded that the meters in the downtown safety zone had brought in $470,000 in revenue in the previous year, approximately $900 per meter. He said removal of the meters would result in a $430,000 revenue change. He related that data indicated that if the downtown core was converted to monitored, free parking with time limits, the City would realize a 30 percent increase in the number of parking tickets in the downtown core. He explained that the downtown area had unlimited free parking in a smaller area in the 1980s and issued approximately 80,000 tickets at that time. He said in 1991, when the three-hour parking program had been instituted, the City had issued 91,000 tickets. He noted that the other metric was that the areas outside of downtown that were two-hour free zones generated approximately 30 percent more parking tickets. He predicted that citation revenue in the downtown area would increase by $40,000 to $50,000 if it was converted to two-hour free parking and this would offset some of the revenue loss from the elimination of the meters. Mr. Clark averred that meters were a solution to a problem that the City did not have as they were designed to keep people moving around. He did not think making sure people do not park downtown was one of the problems the City had. He wanted to investigate parking alternatives in order to best create a more welcoming downtown. Mayor Piercy asked if the City did some kind of accounting for how full parking spaces were downtown. Mr. Petry said that most days during the week there was 55 to 70 percent occupancy of parking spaces, but this varied by location. Mayor Piercy said she would be interested in knowing how full the parking lots were during the work week and on weekends. She noted that she found the Portland parking system to be very self-explanatory and accessible. Mr. Petry observed that Portland had a “smart card” system and Vancouver, Washington had a program called “easy park.” Regarding the latter, he explained that it was an investment in communication information to customers about how to park downtown. He said it would come down to prioritizing resources; in the capital budget there was a placeholder amount of $600,000 to consider signage and ways to communicate information better. Mayor Piercy felt there were “myths” in the community that the parking garages were unsafe. Mr. Petry stated that a security service was provided 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. He said he received daily reports of all of the activities of the security personnel. He related that most of the challenges were related to loitering and skateboarding in the parking garages, though there were some vehicle break-ins. He noted that parking services had a program wherein if something of value was seen in a car, a letter was sent to the car owner recommending that they not leave valuable items in their cars. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 29, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Clark for bringing the issue up for discussion. He noted that Attachment C showed $1.3 million for parking operations and he wondered what that meant. Mr. Petry replied that it included all of the staff, including himself, parking officers, some maintenance crews and some community development. Mr. Poling observed that the results of the survey of the people who had businesses in the downtown area seemed to be “all over the map” in regard to whether or not parking should be free. He suggested they get a more focused group in order to come up with fewer options. He wanted to focus more on what should be done in the downtown area. He felt that at present there was too much on the table. He also wondered if there was a way to track the number of parking violations by repeat offenders in order to potentially increase fines for them. Mr. Petry responded that the technology was available, but not currently in place. He said it was possible to track when a vehicle had a warning. Mr. Poling recommended that the time on one-hour meters be increased on Willamette across from the Hilton. He felt that a person could not park and have a meal in that amount of time. Ms. Taylor declared that the free parking had encouraged her to park downtown but after the meters had been installed she had stopped parking there. She alleged that two business owners told her that was why they left the downtown area. She felt that a small amount of money meant a lot to many people. She wanted to know the costs of the meters including the people that check them. Mr. Zelenka thanked Mr. Petry for his work. He wanted to know the average time for which meters were set. Mr. Petry replied that it varied; typically banks had meters with 30-minute parking, while restaurants had meters with parking for one or two hours. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Petry said the parking fund did not have a capital funding program. He explained that it had a capital plan and each year they looked at their resources and tried to “pick off” their highest priority needs. Ms. Solomon observed that the report indicated $180,000 in capital funds and wondered if there was a plan for these funds. Mr. Petry confirmed that the parking program had a plan. He said the engineering assessment report of the structures had just been completed. He explained that the expenditures in the previous year were related to commercial space changes and general capital for “patching concrete” and lighting replacement. He stated that the capital improvement plan (CIP) had the bigger items such as resealing entire parking decks which cost $300,000 for each and had not been done for the Parcade, estimated to be a future cost of $1 million. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Petry explained that an effective parking program included management, communication, enforcement, and adjudication components. He noted that in Eugene the Municipal Court served to adjudicate parking violations and employed five full time equivalent (FTE) positions to do so. Ms. Solomon noted that Mr. Petry’s presentation had included the projection that costs would exceed revenue in six years. She asked whether he meant that this would be an incremental decline. Mr. Petry affirmed this. Ms. Solomon asked what other options there were. Mr. Petry replied that the program could increase the monthly off-street parking rates. He said the daily on-street rate in the campus area had been increased from 75 cents per hour to $1 and this was projected to increase revenue by approximately $150,000. He noted that other ideas included looking at Boulder, Colorado and Portland, which had invested in downtown signage with parking communication and had experienced increased usage of the parking system. He stated that Portland also utilized multi-space meters which enabled people to use credit cards and resulted in a 40-percent increase in revenue in one year. He said Boulder also began using credit MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 29, 2008 Page 3 Work Session cards for payment and observed that credit cards were used in 70 percent of the transactions and that revenue increased by 46 percent. Ms. Solomon asked the City Manager if the City would continue to ask the parking program to contribute in excess of $500,000 to the General Fund. Mr. Ruiz responded that generally speaking the program would continue to be asked to do so, as were all enterprise funds. He explained that those funds purchased services from the General Fund. He said they also charged enterprise funds the equivalent of an “in lieu of” fee or franchise fee. Mr. Zelenka asked if there was a contribution to the capital fund for rehabilitating parking structures. Mr. Petry responded that the parking program did not build any reserves for capital replacement. He said they looked for the highest priorities and tried to “put it in the budget and make it work.” Mr. Zelenka complimented Mr. Petry for a “well-run program.” He noted that he was not enamored with the idea of reducing the revenue from the parking program with a free program. Mr. Clark suggested there be a motion to extend the time for the topic. He related that he had originally thought the council could direct the City Manager to come back with suggestions for ordinances, but he said a subcommittee convened to come up with solutions would meet that need. He reiterated that his intention was to create a downtown that was a better draw for people who live in Eugene. He felt that if one asked people in general, most felt that parking meters were a deterrent. He averred that the City should be doing more to incentivize activities that brought people downtown, such as the Farmers’ Market. He added his feeling that a change from metered parking to non-metered parking would bring increased revenue from citations and would reduce capital costs which would nearly offset the loss of meter revenue in the downtown core. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to form a subcommittee to come back with spe- cific recommendations. The motion passed, 4:1; Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: Adoption of the Legislative Policies Document Ms. Taylor advocated for approving the Legislative Policies Document. Mayor Piercy expressed concern that councilors might not be ready to vote on the document without discussing it. Mr. Clark thought the document was fairly substantial. He said the council should talk about what it contained. Mr. Zelenka commented that he thought the legislative policies were “fine.” Mr. Poling said he was ready to take action because he had participated in the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) meetings, though he was interested in listening to Mr. Clark and Ms. Solomon’s concerns. Ms. Taylor asked Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, to address the timeline. Ms. Wilson responded that she did not need the document “today” but wished to underscore that the 2009 legislative session was imminent. She said she wanted to be able to begin presenting the document to the legislative delegation in two weeks. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 29, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked if the councilors would be comfortable with passing the document and then discussing it. Mr. Clark indicated he would vote to approve the document so that it would not be held up, with the caveat that he would reserve the right to bring it back up for reconsideration. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to adopt the Legislative Policies Document. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that if a councilor wanted to move to reconsider the motion, it would not be truly a motion to reconsider according to Robert’s Rules of Order unless it happened at the very next meeting. He said it could be brought up at a future meeting with a motion to amend the document as adopted, however. The motion passed, 4:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy resumed discussion of parking policies. She suggested that Ms. Taylor and Mr. Clark serve on a subcommittee for the discussion of downtown parking. Mr. Ruiz believed that convening a subcommittee was a great idea. He said a basic assumption should be that the fund should be self-sufficient. He also said the subcommittee should consider what the boundaries of the downtown parking zone should be and whether the option to change the fines and fees should be exercised. Mr. Zelenka left the meeting at 1 p.m. and the quorum was lost. Mr. Clark agreed that the subcommittee should take those items into account. He asked for a history of the last five years of the carryover into the General Fund. Mr. Petry replied that it was 12 percent of the operating revenue, noting that it had been fairly stable in the last five years. He noted that in Fiscal Year (FY) 04-05 the parking program reduced the transfer and eliminated one .5 FTE position to balance the parking fund. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Clark said he wanted a lot of advice from outside the council but he hoped the subcommittee would be made up of only councilors. Ms. Solomon expressed a preference for having more than just councilors on the subcommittee. Ms. Taylor preferred having the committee include only councilors. Mr. Poling concurred. He added that he liked the City Manager’s suggestion. He also wanted to take a look at some of the new technologies for metering. Ms. Taylor observed that Mr. Poling’s comment assumed there would still be meters. She added that she had reservations about business owners being allowed to determine the length of time for parking at the parking meters. She opined that while it was good for the business owners to have people downtown, the parking was for the people coming downtown. She asserted that some people were getting tickets before their meter expired at the Saturday Market. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 29, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mayor Piercy suggested that the mission statement be revised to include the words “and customers” after “meet the needs of business.” She noted that she had heard from some business owners that parking control offices had told them that they could not plug a meter for a customer. Mr. Clark verified that business owners had been discouraged from helping customers pay their parking meters. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for Mr. Petry’s work. The meeting adjourned at 1:07p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 29, 2008 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT I M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 10, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Betty Taylor participated by telephone. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that Ms. Taylor would join the meeting by phone once the Items of Interest were completed. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Mayor Piercy called for a moment of silence in honor of Veteran’s Day. She also acknowledged the recent passing of Randy Papé and offered the council’s deep condolences to his wife, children, and grandchildren. She noted that his brother, Gary, had been a member of the Eugene City Council from 1999 through 2006. She lauded Randy Papé for being a long-term community leader in Eugene and throughout the State, having served on the Transportation Commission and having been a passionate advocate for the University of Oregon, as well as a leader for important causes such as the United Way Campaign. Mayor Piercy thanked the public for a great voter turnout and especially for the support of the two city measures, the road bond and the charter amendment for the auditor’s office. Ms. Bettman also thanked the voters. She expressed congratulations to everyone who had just been elected or reelected. Mr. Zelenka echoed the congratulations. He was especially pleased that the road measure had passed, having worked on the transportation committee that helped to craft the language. He noted that the backlog of road repairs would still take 40 years to address. He also commended the hard work of City staff, the University of Oregon, and the Fairmount Neighbors, that brought about agreements to bring forward the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the arena project, which had been approved by the Hearings Official. He said it had been a good process. He noted that the Fairmount Neighbors planned to meet on November 12 at the Laurelwood Golf Course at 7:00 p.m. He added that he would participate in the City Council Work th Session on the 12 via telephone. Ms. Ortiz related that she had attended the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference in Cincinatti, Ohio, along with Acting in Charge (AIC) Police Auditor, Dawn Reynolds, and others. She thanked AIC Police Chief Pete Kerns for sending Sgt. Doug Mozan and another officer to the conference. She appreciated their willingness to take time away from their families to help make the community a better place. She noted that she intended to place a motion on the table later in the meeting regarding the Elmira Road/Maple Street improvement. She also wished to note that the State of MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Oregon Health Department planned to speak about cancer clusters related to the railroad pollution issue on November 19 at the Red Cross office. Additionally, Ms. Ortiz wanted to thank the voters. She had been inspired to see so many young people getting involved in the political process. She also stated that the Whiteaker Community Council and the Active Bethel Citizens were both having their monthly meetings on November 12. Mr. Clark extended his congratulations to everyone on their victories. He expressed appreciation for the Mayor’s statement about honoring our veterans. He noted that he had a good friend from college from North Bend who had been killed in Afghanistan a few weeks earlier. He also felt it was entirely fitting to take time to remember Randy Papé for his service to the state of Oregon. Mr. Clark recalled that he had supported the idea of the street bond but had thought the timing might not be the best for it. He was happy that the voters had supported it and that his concerns were unwarranted. He stated that he would make efforts to ensure the council was a good steward of those funds and that the money would be put to work in the ways that had been indicated up front. Mr. Poling wished the United States Marine Corps a happy birthday. He thought the corps was now 233 years old. He thanked all of the marines for their service to the country. He related that the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALCO) was exploring the option of opening up another visitor center in the Gateway/Beltline area, close to the freeway. He noted that he had been experiencing computer troubles; if anyone had not received a response from him it was likely that he had responded but it had not gone through. Mr. Poling said a letter to the editor would be published soon and was to be signed by the Mayor and councilors. He did not intend to sign it. He felt it would be hypocritical for him to thank the voters for measures that he did not support. He noted his intention to ensure the bond money was used as it was intended. In closing, he thanked the Mayor for recognizing veterans in honor of Veteran’s Day. Mr. Pryor expressed gratitude to the voters for entrusting the council with bond money. He felt it presented a unique opportunity to show that the council could take the money and use it wisely. He related that he had attended the HIV Alliance breakfast and it had been inspiring. He had also attended the Churchill Area Neighbors meeting, as well as a couple of meetings on Bailey Hill Road. He said the first of the latter meetings was a small gathering to talk about the changes to be made to the road. He had an opportunity to speak with the mother of the boy who had been killed there. He stated that this had been followed on November 7 with a press conference with Senator Ron Wyden, and some other people, to talk about larger transportation issues. He underscored that the Bailey Hill changes were on his mind and he wanted to see them through. He also wished to express appreciation for Randy Papé. He said he had worked with him a couple of times on school-related issues and had found him to be very thoughtful, deliberate, careful, and competent in what he did. He shared his gratitude to the veterans for the kinds of sacrifices they make in their service to the country. Ms. Solomon thanked everyone for their thoughtful and kind words about Randy Papé. She said he would be greatly missed. She also congratulated everyone who had been reelected. She clarified that the Active Bethel Citizens were holding a meeting of their steering committee later in the week. City Manager Jon Ruiz expressed his gratitude for all of the work that Executive Director of the Public Works Department, Kurt Corey, and his team had done to prepare for the ballot measure on road funding. He noted that he was a veteran and thanked everyone for acknowledging the veterans’ service. He added that while he appreciated the Marine Corps, he believed the Army was older. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy commented that Sen. Wyden’s press conference had also been in regard to the subsequent job creation which undertaking major transportation items would bring about. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Ortiz to place her motion on the table. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to continue to work with prop- erty owners affected by the Maple Street/Elmira Road project to attempt to further address their concerns, with the goal of maintaining the 2009 construction start. Ms. Ortiz underscored the need for Elmira Road to be updated. She said staff had done a lot of good work, but the property owners had concerns with the road designs and wanted the opportunity to meet further with Public Works staff to discuss them. She had received a petition with 200 signatures from area residents. Mr. Pryor appreciated all of the work that staff had done and that there was a construction schedule that needed to be met. He said his point was that he was not interested in creating boutique streets; there must be standards in place. He did not feel this meant the need to discuss the changes with the neighbors was negated. Ms. Bettman would not consider the streets “boutique;” she would consider them unique. She was inclined to support the motion. She had “briefly perused” the materials and noticed that one of the items that was listed to cut in order to come up with $4 million in cuts was the Crest Drive work with the neighborhood. She asked if they were taking one away and putting another one in its place. Mark Schoening, City Engineer for the Public Works Department, explained that the material in the council packet was illustrative of the things they might be able to afford. He said Crest Drive had a specific appropriation. He related that the Elmira Road project was being funded separate from the Road Fund because a portion of it would be assessed and the portion that was not assessed would come out of Systems Development Charges (SDCs). He assured Ms. Bettman that it would not impact the Crest Drive project. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board Report Ms. Taylor joined the meeting by telephone at 5:54 p.m. Dawn Reynolds, Interim Police Auditor, thanked the council for sending her and two members of the Civilian Review Board (CRB) to the NACOLE conference. She called it a very valuable experience. She also thanked Mr. Ruiz for encouraging Acting Police Chief Kerns to send two officers. She noted that Councilor Ortiz and Tamara Miller, chair for the Police Commission, had also gone to the conference. She said they had returned with a lot of good material. She noted that Vicki Cox had joined the Police Auditor’s office after having worked for the City Manager’s Office and expressed appreciation for her work. Ms. Reynolds reported that they had participated in a panel at the conference as one of the smallest cities and one of the few hybrid systems i.e. one with both an auditor and a CRB. She provided a power point presentation about the auditor’s office, its purpose, and its process. She stated that the bulk of complaints were service complaints, or complaints of rudeness or mishandling of property. She said no officers had been arrested within Eugene for criminal misconduct. She said arrests for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) are the most common type of such arrests. She explained that under the Police MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Operations Manual (POM) officers were expected to obey all laws at all times. She noted that the most recent use of deadly force case had been reported exactly as it was supposed to be and she had been contacted accordingly. Ms. Reynolds related that there had been 241 calls for service on Halloween, more than double the amount from the previous year. She said of those calls only one had resulted in a complaint. Ms. Reynolds stated that transparency was the main issue and the CRB was an important component of this. She noted that the members would typically spend eight or nine hours preparing for their meetings and reviewing case information. She added that she had been very happy about the support the voters had indicated for the charter amendment. She stated that they enjoyed a good working relationship with police leadership at this point and she felt optimistic. She said she and Chief Kerns were mutually committed to making the system work. Ms. Reynolds said the CRB would be reviewing the charter, the ordinances, and the protocols, but not any cases, for its November meeting to see what they needed to do to make the system more effective. She noted that they had seen improvements in Internal Affairs (IA) investigations. The Board felt that questions asked in investigations were sometimes leading in nature and had given that input. She believed they were “well on their way” to meeting the goal of building trust. Mayor Piercy thanked the CRB for their work. She also acknowledged the good job the Eugene Police Department (EPD) had done on Halloween. She felt it had been a positive event. Ms. Ortiz thanked Ms. Reynolds and the CRB members for coming to the council work session. She related that there had been a homicide in her neighborhood involving a Latino victim. She said Chief Kerns had gone out of his way to reach out to the communities of color. He had come to the neighborhood to answer questions and this had meant a lot. Mr. Clark thanked Ms. Reynolds and the CRB. He said he appreciated all of the work they did. He expressed concern about the application of community values in regard to the use of force. He wanted to understand what the community values were and how they would be appropriately applied. He asked if investigating how they could “put a better finger on the pulse of community values” was part of the planning for the future. Ms. Reynolds responded that included in the council packets was an attitude and perception survey they were developing, with the assistance of David Murphy, a professor of criminal justice. She said they had discussed the form with Capt. Steve Swenson. She was confident they would be doing more to define community values. Mr. Clark understood that the purpose of the civilian oversight system included the reestablishment of trust but he had not seen that concept in the slide presentation. Ms. Reynolds replied that the oversight systems were built on the idea that those who had power needed some type of accountability and the trust the community had was earned. She said the public was looking for oversight and this was a two-way street. She was also working to improve the trust of the EPD so they would know that the oversight system was not biased against them. In regard to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Reynolds said the EPD always sent an officer to the CRB meetings and they encouraged people to come to them and see how they functioned in order to see the seriousness and thoughtfulness they brought to their review. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to establish a council subcommittee to de- velop recommendations for the supervision and management of the Police Auditor and regu- lar communication and coordination of the Civilian Review Board. In regard to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Reynolds stated that she was an attorney with a background in criminal law, having served both as a prosecutor and a public defender. She had also worked in administrative law for many years. She planned to take an American Bar Association (ABA) sponsored Criminal Law Enforcement (CLE) course on excessive force. She said she had taken all of the courses available at the NACOLE conference necessary for certification and she also had been asked, and agreed to, serve on a professional standards committee for NACOLE. She related that she also was taking the Citizens Police Academy. She noted that two of the CRB members had completed the course and the rest planned to do so. She spoke glowingly of the training available at the EPD, and the classes in Ethics and Racial Profiling in particular. Ms. Solomon asked if there was any required training for the CRB. Ms. Reynolds responded that they were developing their work plan and NACOLE had an outline for training modules for the CRB. Ms. Solomon said, regarding the survey, she was curious as to how the information would be used that would be gained from the question that asked to what extent the different entities involved were supportive of the oversight system. She asked who would be taking the survey and how the information would be useful. Ms. Reynolds replied that the survey sought to establish a baseline because it was a new system. She said the survey had not been sent out to anyone at this point, but after it was approved she hoped the council would also respond to it. Ms. Solomon said she would be interested in how broadly the survey would be circulated. She wanted to know how both people who touched the system and people who did not touch the system felt about it. Mr. Zelenka thanked the CRB members for their time and service. He felt that the entire council should supervise the Police Auditor. He said he would like to see the subcommittee’s work completed by a date certain. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the other thing to consider in the motion would be the number of councilors on the subcommittee and who they would appoint to it. Ms. Bettman liked the motion because the charter mandated that the CRB oversaw and evaluated the work of the Police Auditor. She did not think it would be consistent with the charter if the CRB did not have a “major role” in the process. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to delineate that the subcommittee would be made up of four councilors. Mr. Pryor agreed that the intent of the motion was to have it consist of councilors only. He said he had envisioned three councilors serving on the subcommittee but he was amenable to having the number be four. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pryor suggested that the motion include language that indicated that the committee should come back to the council with a total review and approval as soon as possible. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka suggested that the language indicate that it should be brought to the council before the first quarter ended. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to indicate that they would form a subcommittee that included councilors, the Civilian Review Board, and the Police Auditor. Mr. Pryor said this was not what he had in mind. He explained that he believed the subcommittee would be working with the CRB and Police Auditor but would not include them. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said he did not think that the motion sought to involve oversight and evaluation of the auditor, but rather to work with the CRB and to bring back a recommenda- tion to the council. He did not see this as being in violation of the charter. Mr. Clark asked whether the council would want to have input from police leadership involved in the process. Mr. Zelenka averred that the motion was just about supervision of the Police Auditor and the establishment of parameters on council communication and securities. He wanted to see the motion be a little stronger in terms of the role of the auditor and the CRB. Mr. Pryor did not see the process being successful without intimate involvement of the CRB. He had been trying to establish a line of authority. Mr. Zelenka suggested making the CRB members akin to ex officio members of the committee. Mr. Pryor was amenable to that. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion. She averred that the language in the charter was clear; the CRB had oversight over the Police Auditor. She thought to function and work in good faith with the CRB the committee should include the councilors appointed by the council, the CRB and the auditor. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the motion to read that it establish a council subcommittee of four councilors, appointed by the council, and including the Ci- vilian Review Board and the Police Auditor, to develop a recommendation on the supervi- sion and support of the Police Auditor and to establish parameters for communicating with the Civilian Review Board; the recommendations would be brought back to the City Coun- cil for review and approval. Mayor Piercy observed that the whole purpose of the motion was for a group of councilors to sit down with the CRB and the auditor and to come back with recommendations for the council. Mr. Pryor affirmed that this was the greater sense of the motions. He said the difference between the two motions had to do specifically with the issue of authority. He stressed that who the auditor worked for did not mean the auditor did not have a relationship with the CRB or that the council did not have a relationship with the CRB or that the CRB should not be involved. He asked the City Attorney to clarify this. Mr. Lidz stated that the Police Auditor provided staff support for the CRB. He said the performance evaluation of the Police Auditor was within the purview of the council. Mr. Pryor felt that the person who was in charge of the performance evaluation of the employee needed to be the person who had the final authority to approve the ultimate recommendation. He stressed that the only MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 6 Work Session difference between the two motions was that he wanted to leave the “path clear.” He did not want to leave the CRB out he just wanted to be clear about what the charter states in terms of supervision. Mr. Zelenka wanted to get vetting on all issues. He felt the amendment would mean the council would be asking the advice of the CRB and auditor in a more formal way. Ms. Ortiz hoped she would be appointed to the committee. She said she was inclusive in her deliberations and whether or not someone was able to vote, she would still take their thoughts forward. Ms. Reynolds reiterated that the CRB wanted communication and there needed to be a formalized arrangement for it. She thought a good team would include a discreet number of councilors, herself and the CRB. She supposed the amendment made it a little more clear, but she believed the intent had always been that they would work together to come up with a plan. Mr. Pryor thought the difference between the motion and the amendment was “infinitesimal” in terms of how it would work on the ground. He said everyone would be involved and everyone would be contributing regardless. He had wanted to draw a clear line between the authority of the council and the authority of the CRB; this was not an attempt to be exclusive. He averred that either way “the job would get done and done in a good way.” The vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and it passed. The vote on the motion, as amended, passed 5:3: Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a reporting schedule by the Police Auditor to the council which would require a comprehensive annual written report, quar- terly updates presented to the full council at a council session; the annual report would be one of the quarterly updates written and presented to the council and a monthly written memorandum via the packet. Mr. Clark said he would like to see the report be specific to purpose, tools, and accomplishments. Ms. Bettman stated that there was standardized protocol in the reports in “the industry.” She assumed that this would be what the reports would contain. Ms. Reynolds thought the committee could provide a template for what the council wanted to see in reports. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the Police Auditor to work with the Civilian Review Board to review current administrative procedures and protocols and to de- velop recommendations to accomplish the smooth functioning of the oversight system; these recommendations should be reviewed by the Chief of Police and any comments or concerns forwarded to the council along with the full document for review and action by the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Police Auditor Supervision and Related Issues Ms. Bettman felt the council had talked a “little bit” about supervision in the last section of the agenda and that would take care of a lot of the administrative issues and procedures that could crop up. She had a motion to place on the table in that regard. She averred that the structure for providing complaint oversight needed to be “personality proof.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back Ordinance No. 20374 to a public hearing on December 8, 2008, amended as follows: 1. The Police Auditor shall have exclusive authority to classify and route complaints, as well as to reclassify complaints if upon further investigation and additional in- formation, not available at the time of intake, the Auditor finds reclassification war- ranted. 2. Investigation of complaints shall commence upon classification of the complaint by the Police Auditor or as soon as possible thereafter, and no investigation shall occur before the Police Auditor has received, classified, and routed the complaint. 3. Upon the opening of a case file, and any time thereafter including closed cases, the Police Auditor shall have complete, unrestricted, and direct access to all records, evidence, documents, and all material the Police Auditor deems relevant to the complaint. 4. Administrative investigations shall proceed concurrently with any related criminal investigation; administrative investigations shall not be suspended, delayed, or postponed, while criminal proceedings involving complainants and witnesses are re- solved. 5. The Police Auditor shall have complete, unrestricted, and direct access to the nec- essary Eugene Police Department offices; the same as Internal Affairs staff. In ad- dition the Police Auditor shall have complete, unrestricted, and direct access to In- ternal Affairs PRO database, the same as the program coordinator and the Internal Affairs PRO supervisor. 6. The Police Auditor shall maintain strict name confidentiality wherever warranted or legally required. Upon classification of the complaint, the Police Chief may request the Police Auditor provide name confidentiality on a specific case, and the Police Auditor shall comply, but the identifications of any involved parties shall not be withheld from the Police Auditor. 7. There shall be an opportunity for appeal of the Police Chief’s adjudication to the City Manager for final determination (on the existing record). Appeal shall be available in cases of misconduct upon the request of the Police Auditor, the Civilian Review Board, or the complainant in cases where there is disagreement between the Police Auditor and the Police Chief and/or the Civilian Review Board and the Po- lice Chief. 8. Risk claims shall be forwarded to Internal Affairs and the Police Auditor for classi- fication and processing as a complaint. 9. The Police Auditor shall review random selections of Service Complaints. 10. The definition for “police employee” shall include the Police Chief by adding “in- cluding the Chief who answers to the City Manager.” 11. The Police Auditor’s budget shall be sufficient to accomplish all of the duties and responsibilities of the office including sufficient and readily available funds to con- tract for external investigations. 12. Update Section 2.456(2)(c)(d) for consistency with the Charter. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman said one of the things that had been compromised when formulating the ordinance language was subpoena power because the council felt the model gave the auditor access to all of the information and the investigations and the ability to ensure an investigation was thorough. She averred that the issues that had cropped up over the past nine months had shown that there were lots of ways this could be frustrated. She asserted that the provisions in her motion would address those issues and give the Police Auditor and the CRB the “tools they need to do their job.” She felt the motion was “well within the threshold” of the authority granted by the Charter. Mr. Clark supported the idea of effective police oversight and he had maintained this position from the start. He observed that there had been challenges and “rough spots” in the last year. He wanted to see the City move forward on this, but he wanted to do so in a deliberative and thorough way. He felt there were a number of substantive issues contained in the motion and many raised valid points. He said he was under- prepared to make a decision on all of the proposed motion at the current meeting. He declared that if the council was willing to create committees to revisit issues that seemed to him to be much smaller than the compilation of issues in the motion, it would make sense not to rush something far-reaching through in a hurry. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the council constitute a committee to go through all of the components of the motion; a committee that would not be made up of only councilors, but would include many members of the community with many points of view, that would be directed to come back to the council with considered opinions on all of the motion. Ms. Taylor supported Ms. Bettman’s motion as proposed. She thought it was comprehensive and needed. Mr. Zelenka thought that the recent “65 percent yes vote” on amending the charter language indicated that there was support for strengthening the system, per Ms. Bettman’s motion. He felt it sent a “clear signal” to the City, to EPD, and to the auditor that the system needed to work. He averred that the changes would “get us there.” He said the changes should be vetted by the council, adding that the timing of this was important because Ms. Bettman’s history and knowledge on this issue could be used before she left the office of councilor at the end of the year. He believed that if the council passed the ordinance language at the present meeting, it could have a work session on it on November 17, schedule a public hearing for December 8, and then finalize it at the December 10 meeting. Mr. Pryor did not think they should make policy based on when someone was leaving office. He felt the work that Ms. Bettman had done on the ordinance had been “incredible” but he did not want to be rushed into making changes as comprehensive as the ones set forth in her motion. He averred that a motion containing 12 items warranted a lot of discussion. He declared that to move straight to an ordinance and then have a public hearing was faster than his comfort level would allow. He said there was a lot in the ordinance that would likely be desirable; with the right conversation it would be appropriate to incorporate it. He underscored that it was not a matter of doing or not doing it, it was a matter of how they could do it well. He noted that they had just appointed a process using the auditor and the CRB to develop recommen- dations on procedures, protocols, and smooth functioning. He did not know to what degree this motion would jumpstart that process. He likened Ms. Bettman’s motion to “beating [the committee] to the punch.” Ms. Bettman averred that her motion had nothing to do with the council’s supervision of the auditor or the CRB; it had to do with access to information. She opined that they had to reinforce the policy issues like the voters had to reinforce the charter with the language change. She asserted that the issues had been raised before. She felt the proposed timeline provided an adequate opportunity to consider her motion and take MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 9 Work Session public input. She said these were issues they would have to grapple with anyway and the council was the body to do so. Mayor Piercy commented that she would have a lot of trouble moving forward with the motion if there was not another work session. She was also concerned that these were issues that had been brought up and the City Manager was taking administrative steps to address some of them. She expressed concern about whether there were any legal issues. Mr. Lidz stated that the City Attorneys had only seen the motion for the first time earlier in the day. He said there was at least one component of the motion that would be subject to bargaining and there were others that would need clarification. He thought there were components of the motion that had implications for the criminal justice system, and in particular prosecutions. Ms. Solomon said she was stunned at the lack of transparency. She averred that Ms. Bettman was trying to advance all of the components of this motion “on a day’s notice” and with very little public involvement in order to meet “somebody’s personal timeline.” She had concerns about the management of confidential information coming out of the auditor’s office and wanted to discuss this. She also wanted to see more promotion of the unsubstantiated complaints that came out of that office. She agreed with Mr. Pryor, that this could be a meaningful discussion point for the auditor, the CRB, and the council committee. She supported Mr. Clark’s motion. Ms. Ortiz understood that Ms. Bettman’s motion would be “a lot to digest” for her peers who had not “been on this journey.” She said though she did not support several components of the motion she was willing to continue to work on them. She acknowledged Ms. Bettman’s work on the ordinance but wished to point out that the Police Commission had also put in many hours of work on it. Mr. Clark said his intention was to form a different committee than the one they had just formed in the earlier agenda item. He hoped to get wider community input on this. He observed that this issue and other issues had been pretty heated in the community and he wanted to find ways to work together. He stated that he wanted to have a better buy-in from the EPD and the opportunity to get a better legal opinion on several of the points of the motion. He underscored that this was not an issue of competence to deal with a number of difficult questions so much as it was an issue of doing the business of the City in a better way. He hoped they would be more deliberative and would involve more voices in the process rather than “ramming them through quickly.” He opined that this was moving too fast. He noted that the City Attorney had informed him that his motion lacked specificity with regard to the number of councilors the committee would include. He said he would leave that open to suggestion. He thought the first person to be appointed to the committee should be Ms. Bettman. Mr. Zelenka opposed Mr. Clark’s motion. He called Ms. Bettman’s original motion a “straw proposal put on the table that we get to whack at.” He did not believe it would change anything at this point. He averred that there would be ample opportunity to include the public’s comments on this, as well as comments from the EPD staff and the auditor. He opined that these were not new issues; they were thoughtful solutions to some of the things that had been “stumbling blocks” in front of the work the auditor needed to do. Mr. Pryor opposed both motions. He thought they could get more council support if they “just took the time” to get more support. He found it unfortunate that they ended up with four to four votes because the council wanted to get something done “now” rather than taking the time to garner more support for something. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked what it would take to “get people to a place where they had something they could agree on.” She asked if they should have another meeting. Ms. Bettman opined that tie votes were a “reality in the community.” She asserted that the community had divergent opinions, but a majority had supported the charter amendment. She felt they had taken bold steps and had made progress but now they needed to make updates and refinements to it. She declared that none of the components of her motion were far-reaching. She believed the timeline was adequate as was the notice for the public hearing. She said she had discussed the changes she was proposing “extensively” with the former Police Auditor and Ms. Reynolds, and had received “a little feedback” from the City Manager. Mr. Clark did not want to characterize the issue as support or lack of support for the Police Auditor’s office. He reiterated that he had been a consistent voice in support of effective oversight and had never voted otherwise. He observed that it was said that “half of the community thought the other half was crazy and they were right.” He wanted to have more voices at the table to go through the points of the motion because he wanted to have buy-in from “many other people.” Ms. Taylor considered Ms. Bettman’s motion to be routine. She felt it reinforced what the public wanted. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that in order to have a public hearing on December 8 the ordinance had to be final by November 21 and the title of the ordinance had to be final by November 19. He said they could have the work session on November 17, but if the council made significant changes it would be difficult for thst them to get an ordinance ready by the 19 and the 21. He added that if they had the public hearing on December 8 and then made significant changes it would be very unlikely that legal counsel would be able to turn the ordinance around so that the council could take action on it on December 10. He underscored that while it seemed like there was a lot of time, because of the charter requirement for a ten-day notice there really was not that much time. He stated that the council would need to give the attorneys and staff final direction by November 17. Ms. Bettman alleged that she had seen the council make major changes to ordinances after public hearings. She asked Mr. Klein to define ‘significant.’ Mr. Klein said if there was a lot of time to make the changes to the ordinance it was not a problem. He explained that if they needed to rewrite much of the ordinance between Monday night and Wednesday at noon, the council did not like to receive final ordinance language Wednesday at noon and would want it no later than Tuesday night. He stated that this provided only eight hours to work through any of the issues that could be raised after the public hearing. He did not mean ‘significant’ in the legal sense; he meant ‘significant’ as in things that would cause them to do a major rewrite of the ordinance. Mr. Clark’s amended motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting in favor. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add the schedule that they discussed: a work session on November 17 in lieu of the public hearing which currently had no items on the docket, a public hearing on December 8, and action to be taken on December 10. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon called this schedule impossible. She said it assumed there would be no changes made after the public hearing on December 8. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said it was his expectation that most of the substantive changes would be made on November 17. He thought what they would get out of the public hearing would only be “tweaking.” Mr. Clark ascertained that Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz would not be available on November 17. He pointed out that the council was also trying to hire a new Police Auditor and was undertaking several other things. He reiterated his feeling that they were pushing the motion through too quickly. The vote on Ms. Bettman’s motion was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark vot- ing in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and it passed. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that no action be taken at the council meetings scheduled for November 17 and 19 in reference to the Police Auditor ordinance. Mr. Poling stressed that all of the councilors should be available to consider “something of this magnitude.” He said they should not take action on November 17, given that two councilors would be absent. Ms. Bettman opined that the protocol had always been that the councilors at the meeting vote on whether or not to move something forward. She said she had attended by phone at times when she could not attend in person. She indicated her opposition to the motion. Mr. Poling stated that he would attend by telephone if that was possible for him to do, but in this case it was not. Mr. Clark urged the Mayor to give consideration to this. He called it “one of those opportunities to build greater consensus” on something they all essentially supported. He said there were many things in the motion that he could agree to, but he objected to the manner in which it was being undertaken. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in fa- vor and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and Mr. Poling’s motion to defer action until all councilors could be present failed. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 12 Work Session ATTACHMENT J M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 10, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 7:40 p.m. She stated that the council had passed a motion during its work session to direct staff to continue to work with property owners affected by the Maple/Elmira Road project to further address their concerns with the goal of maintaining the 2009 construction start. She said they would still welcome input from concerned residents of that area. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Robert Clemens , 590 Tyler Street, Apartment 7, suggested that the ten-foot width of grass by the Campbell Senior Center be converted to a garden from which anyone could pick vegetables. He thought county jail inmates could work in the garden under supervision. He felt it would give them constructive work to do and the new garden would serve more people. He noted that the area was already serviced by a sprinkler system. He did not believe such a garden would increase the work load for park personnel nor did he think a free garden would impact sales at the Farmers’ Market. Deb Frisch criticized the Hearings Official for approving the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the University of Oregon. She announced that she would not be filing an appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), but she intended to file a complaint with the Oregon State Bar about the Hearings Official. She reiterated that LUBA would hold a hearing in Salem on the arena on November 13. She said if anyone took the council seriously they would no longer do so after the preceding work session. She criticized the interim Police Auditor for leaking information to the press. Drix thanked everyone for the opportunity to speak. He shared his love for the City of Eugene. He stressed the importance of doing things together. He hoped to inspire people. He recalled the history of Veterans’ Day, which had begun at the culmination of World War I with Armistice Day. He said Ken Kesey had died on Veterans’ Day. He related that he honored Mr. Kesey’s memory by playing a drum for eleven minutes at Kesey Plaza. He invited anyone who was interested to join him. He showed the shirt he was wearing, which had been worn by a crew chief on a helicopter in the first Gulf War. He said his friend, Andrew Cady, had died in that war and was honored on the memorial in Skinner’s Butte Park. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, congratulated Mayor Piercy on her recent reelection. He presented her with a tee shirt that featured the emblem of a track shoe company and the slogan “Class War: Just Do It.” He announced that there would be a Fairmount Neighbors Meeting on November 12 at 7:00 p.m. He felt it was an important meeting, noting that the schedule for the meeting was packed. He asserted that this was a tactic to make sure it was “too busy to talk about anything in detail.” He said the neighborhood could file an appeal of the recent CUP for the arena project to LUBA for $1,500. He averred that one of the co-chairs should resign as he was the chair of the University Architecture Department. He opined that he was trying to do too many things at once and should continue being an architecture professor and “skip hijacking the neighborhood.” He believed that the University would exercise eminent domain as it would want more land and the Oregon State Board of Higher Education would “basically rubber stamp anything the U of O decided it wanted to seize.” He reiterated his unhappiness with the chair of the neighborhood association. He averred that the current chair was “trying to tear the neighborhood apart.” Joe Donald , 3328 Elmira Road, said he and his wife had concerns about the proposed road construction on Elmira Road, including the money that had been diverted to Roosevelt Boulevard when it was built years earlier. He averred that the money that had been diverted should be returned to the Elmira Road project. He stated that maintenance on Elmira Road had been limited to pothole filling for the last couple of decades, though the residents had been paying taxes for its upkeep. He underscored that Elmira Road was a major bus route as well as a route for emergency vehicles. He felt that on that justification alone, it should be a priority project. He said there had been no maintenance on storm drains and no stormwater improvements. He wanted to see those types of improvements. He pointed out that Eugene’s other revenue sources included the gas tax, the bond measure that had just passed, and federal money Eugene received for road improve- ments. He suggested that the City ask the Lane Transit District (LTD) for a portion of the money the district received for improvements to its system. He also wanted to know who decided which citizens paid for streets and which did not. He asserted that many municipalities do not charge citizens for improvements. He said many of the residents on Elmira Road were not able to afford the road improvements. In closing, he declared that the City should be responsible to its residents and roads accordingly. Suny Kim , 430 Gilbert Street, said she owned the convenience store on Elmira Road and it had eight parking spaces. She related that the current plan showed that a sidewalk would be placed along the road and this would curtail the ability of car drivers to park and turn around in her parking lot. She related that the purpose of the project was to upgrade and beautify the street and to make it safer. She averred that the first priority should be safety and convenience. She was also concerned that improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian amenities would affect property values in the area. She said one customer indicated to her that he would no longer come to her store if it became difficult to access. She reiterated that she wanted the City to permit open access to the parking spaces for her store. Joan Kelly , 3265 Elmira Road, stated that she had lived on Elmira Road for 29 years. She wanted to acknowledge all of the members of her neighborhood who had come to the meeting. She noted that they were wearing red because it was the color of stop signs and they wished to stop the project as it was currently planned. She thanked Councilor Ortiz for bringing the motion to the council to garner more neighborhood input on the project before putting it into motion. She added her congratulations to the Mayor and councilors who had been reelected. Ms. Kelly averred that a single-residence assessment of $8,000 to $15,000 was too costly. She felt it was an especially bad time to charge people this much given the current economic situation. She opined that there was no justification for the policy of assessing people for street improvements. She said the deteriorated condition of Elmira Road was attributable to more than 30 years of neglect by first the County and then the City and an increase of local traffic due to “ill-conceived infill with high density housing.” She said Elmira Road was a local street. She asserted that through-traffic should utilize Roosevelt Boulevard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting Regarding the design, while she appreciated the efforts of City staff to save trees and significant vegetation, she believed the combined width of two ten-foot travel lanes, two sidewalks, two bicycle paths, and two planting strips was too extreme and pushed the concrete footprint into existing front yards. She pointed out that there was a bicycle path with separate traffic lanes and eight access points two blocks south of Elmira Road. She related that residents would also lose their on-street parking unless they paid $650 per parking bay. She underscored that the majority of residents opposed the design as currently proposed. She opined that staff had not listened to the residents. Wes Palmer , 3320 Elmira Road, and his wife strongly opposed redoing the road. He averred that removing the mature trees would take away the appeal of their street. He said the mature landscaping had contributed to their decision to buy their house. He stated that the planting strips and bicycle lanes would take away the available parking. He related that even if they paid for a parking bay in front of their home they would still be losing parking capacity. He felt the mature trees gave the street a feeling of separation from the nearby industrial areas and property values would be lowered by their removal. He asked the councilors to help the neighbors maintain the unique appeal of their neighborhood. He added that the assessment represented approximately one-third of his annual income. He believed this was true for many of his neighbors. He felt it would be a burden in the face of a potential depression. His wife noted that one of their neighbors had been so opposed to the plan that he moved. Thomas Young , 3324 Elmira Road, said he had attended two meetings with City staff. He felt the staff had not listened “at all.” He did not feel he should have to pay for something he did not want in the first place. He was not against having road improvements but he believed current plans represented taking the maximum road allowance. He averred that the economic situation had changed and most of the residents were on fixed incomes. Laura Gillpatrick , 2350 N. Terry Street, #75 said, while she did not reside on Elmira Road, she was a member of the Active Bethel Citizens (ABC) steering committee. She related that the steering committee had voted to support the Elmira Road petition. She had spoken with many Bethel residents. She felt that continuing the discussion would empower residents. Kim Crieger-Goodwin , P.O. Box 2421, spoke in support of the expansion of the boundary of the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) into the Trainsong neighborhood. She explained that she was a real estate agent; she had sold real estate and managed apartment rentals for 13 years. She related that her family had purchased a property on Aberdeen Street in the Trainsong neighborhood approximately ten years earlier. She said they wanted to create energy efficient, clean, livable multi-family dwellings with open space and garden space. She noted that it was an area with very few parks. She averred that the area’s potential for redevelopment was low as it would only support lower-priced rentals. She asserted that it was very difficult to break even on a project like that even if it was using federal support. She said the property her family owned was zoned R-4, residential. She related that quantity would help such a project break even but she did not believe high density development was practical given how much of the land would be taken up by parking and the building footprint. She wanted to develop something that would not be substandard housing. Carol Berg-Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, said her commentary in the Register Guard on the previous day primarily sought to commend the Eugene Police Department (EPD), the University of Oregon’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), and student groups for the successful pre-Halloween planning that had resulted in “far less tumult.” She recapped her commentary. She suggested that revenues from the approximately 248 citations for alcohol-related offenses issued on Halloween be allocated to youth drug and alcohol rehabilitation services. She also reiterated her concern that the police were not receiving adequate access to counseling. She felt the “psychic toll” on police due to what they witnessed in their work “must be immense.” She believed the City could avoid a certain amount of litigation if the police were less impacted MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting by their work. She closed her comments by congratulating the Mayor on her reelection and commending both Mayor Piercy and former-Mayor Torrey for their grace, her grace “in victory matched by Jim Torrey’s grace in defeat.” Mayor Piercy closed the forum. She related that the council had a moment of silence for Veterans Day during its work session. She thanked Drix for reminding people of the importance of the day. She also wished to thank everyone for voting for the two city measures. She appreciated the testimony from the residents of Elmira Road, saying she was glad they came out and let their voices be heard. She added that she had really appreciated hearing the comments of Ms. Crieger-Goodwin. Councilor Ortiz wanted to clarify that her motion was not to stop the project, but rather was to direct staff to go back and work with Elmira Road residents to come to an agreement. Councilor Poling noted that Mr. Donald had raised questions about where the gas tax went and how the assessments for upgrades were assigned. He asked the City Manager to make this a top priority to address for the residents of the area. Mr. Ruiz agreed to have someone from the Public Works Department contact Elmira Road residents and do so. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - July 23, 2008, Work Session - July 28, 2008, City Council Meeting - October 8, 2008, Work Session B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of September 24, 2008 Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Ms. Bettman stated that she had submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Mayor Piercy deemed them, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. ACTION: Follow-up on 2009 Legislative Policies Document Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, said that the City of Eugene had prepared a legislative policies document for at least the past two decades. She explained that the City provided the document to the legislative delegation and to its intergovernmental partners in order to outline its general policy direction and guidelines. She stated that in every even-numbered year the City updated the document prior to the start of the normal Legislative Session. She related that earlier in the summer the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had reviewed the document and made some revisions, with the primary goal to make the document more user-friendly so that a reader could look at it and easily distinguish the policy objectives. She noted that she would be updating the document to replace language referring to Ballot Measure (BM) 37 with language referring to BM 49. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for the hard work of staff and the CCIGR. He said he had a V number of concerns, specifically with section . He did not think the council majority would accommodate the minority position. He said he would save time and not bother with the argument. He felt troubled by a couple of sections in the document. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman declared that many of the items in the document were far-reaching and would not get passed by the council. She felt many updates had not been made to the document. She did not know whether the council supported the “Big Look.” She did not know whether the City really wanted to “further gut” the land use system by amending BM 49. Ms. Wilson said the Big Look Task Force was currently meeting and would present its recommendation to the Legislature shortly. Councilor Bettman observed that the Legislative Document indicated council support before the council had seen it. Ms. Wilson affirmed this. She explained that the document was general and was not usually used by lobbying staff except in an emergency. She stressed that it was important to remember that the CCIGR would review all bills that pertained to the City on a case-by-case basis. She said while the City might support the Governor’s transportation funding bill, which called for a two-cent per gallon state gas tax increase, if it preempted the local gas tax the City might have a different position on it. She reiterated that they reserved the right to look at every bill because the “devil is in the details.” Councilor Pryor appreciated the work done on reformatting the document. He commended the CCIGR on the work they had done to make it more understandable. He said the reason he did not feel a need to go into great detail on it at the current meeting was that, as the legislative session progressed, the individual bills that would be proposed would be discussed at length in the CCIGR. He stated that overall he supported the document as written. Councilor Zelenka also appreciated the format, calling it easy to follow. He asked if Ms. Wilson knew how the two-cent gas tax would be allocated. Ms. Wilson responded that a 50:30:20 split was being recom- mended that should put an additional $91 million into local government. She said the City of Eugene’s share was based on its percentage of the population of the State of Oregon, estimated to provide the City with $5.3 million. She noted that there were other funding mechanisms in the package such as doubling the state titling fee and doubling the registration fee. She related that the House Transportation Committee had authorized the drafting of a bill that would eliminate the need for counties to go out to voters to increase their registration fees. She called it a “tool box of funding options” for the State. She said a committee would be convened under the Governor’s recommendation to look for a long-term permanent replacement for the gas tax since they believed it was a diminishing funding resource. She added that the Senate also authorized a bill to be drafted that would eliminate the gas tax based on a dollar amount and replace it with one based on percentage of sales. Councilor Zelenka asked if there was any word from the gas station lobby. Ms. Wilson responded that they would tend to support an increase in the gas tax at the state level as long as local governments were preempted. Councilor Zelenka recalled that when the Transportation Committee had been convened they had been “stymied” because registration fees could only be increased at the County level. He asked if it would be possible for the City to look at a registration fee at the local level. Ms. Wilson replied that they could look at it. She noted that Representative Beyer served as the Chair of the House Transportation Committee, and might be amenable to allowing an amendment to allow cities to also collect registration fees. She said whether there was the political will to do so was a different question. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson explained that every property tax exemption reduced the amount of money that went into the General Fund. She said in every session there were so many tax exemption bills on the table it was hard to keep track of them all. She averred that as the session progressed it was not the best exemptions that were passed, but rather the first exemptions that were passed. She declared the number of existing tax exemptions to be “mind boggling.” She clarified that the first bullet MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting point under B2 Exemptions under the heading of FINANCING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT meant that the City supported looking at tax exemptions that were granted in the past in order to determine whether they were still good public policy on a case-by-case basis. Councilor Zelenka asked what was meant by opposition to mandating that a portion of urban renewal funds be spent on particular types of projects, in the second bullet point under B3 Urban Renewal Districts. Ms. Wilson responded that this section had been revised by staff because it had, at one time, been very wordy. She explained that the policy statement declared that the legislature should not mandate for which projects local governments used their urban renewal funds. Mr. Ruiz felt the statement supported maximizing local flexibility in such projects. Councilor Zelenka felt that the second bullet on page 10 under TRANSPORTATION A. Funding for Streets, Highways and Transit should be called out separately. He averred that given the enormity of the City’s backlog of street repairs the desire to prioritize funding for a system of maintenance and preservation should stand out on its own. Councilor Bettman opposed the document. She explained that bullet points under B3 Urban Renewal indicated that Eugene supported disallowing public schools the opportunity to create urban renewal. She opined that this was counter to every policy the City supported. She said the finance page indicated that Eugene would oppose anything that reduced jurisdictions’ local taxes and local revenue. She believed the two were contradictory. She averred that any special projects should go to the ballot. Councilor Poling asked what was meant by “reasonable replacements to Measure 49” on page 15 under D1 Ballot Measure 37 [to be corrected to say Ballot Measure 49]. Ms. Wilson replied that it was her feeling that they should reword that sentence, because they were not just looking for a reasonable replacement for BM 37 or additional fixes for BM 49. She explained that the State was considering a whole new way of looking at the land use planning system. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, Ms. Wilson clarified that the second bullet point under D3 Twenty-Year Land Supply referred only to the impact of rural residential development within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Councilor Poling was uncertain whether he was ready to move the document forward. Councilor Zelenka was unclear what was meant by basing the buildable lands inventory on actual past development, as referred to in the third and fourth bullet point under D3. Ms. Wilson explained that the two policy directions had been included in the past several documents; staff had not updated the policy directions that the council had previously adopted and the council was free to change them. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson confirmed that the City supported the use of polygraphs in police hiring, as referred to on page 21 under C9 Use of Polygraph for Police Officer Hiring. Councilor Clark thought he likely had a number of problems with the Legislative Document. He stressed that this was no reflection on Ms. Wilson’s work. He believed the document deserved more time. He did not wish to oppose the document, preferring instead to table it. He was especially concerned with the bullet points on page 16 under D3 Twenty-Year Land Supply. Mr. Ruiz expressed concern that not moving forward with the document could make Ms. Wilson’s job more difficult. He reiterated that any bill that could affect Eugene would have to come back for consideration by the CCIGR. He thought the council could spend five or six hours on the document, but was not prepared to MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting do so at this meeting. He stressed Ms. Wilson’s need for some guidance, adding that Eugene did not want to be “impotent up at the Legislature.” He encouraged the council to move forward with the Legislative Policies Document. Mayor Piercy averred that no one wanted to sign off on the document because it implied that the council might support some things it did not necessarily support. Councilor Pryor asked if they should take the document back to the CCIGR. Mr. Ruiz suggested that the council use some work session time going through it rather than going back and forth with the CCIGR. Councilor Ortiz stated that Ms. Wilson had brought the document to the CCIGR several times. She did not see huge issues in it. She thought holding a work session was a good idea. She apologized to Ms. Wilson for the delay. Councilor Bettman commented that this was not a reflection on Ms. Wilson. She related that she had envisioned a “lengthy process” with the council actually bringing forward legislation they felt was needed and also vetting the document. Councilor Zelenka suggested that the councilors pull out the sections they felt were controversial. He felt this would give Ms. Wilson a document that was 90 percent complete. Councilor Poling related that when he and Councilor Ortiz had first been appointed to the CCIGR he had thumbed through the document. He said at that time he found some things that “raised an eyebrow” and he had been told they were things the council had voted on and could not be changed without a council vote. Ms. Wilson clarified that the document had been changed to remove some things that were already completed. Mayor Piercy said there was direction to move forward with a work session. She noted that there was one more piece of work to complete at the current meeting: the designation of who would serve on a council committee to work with the Civilian Review Board and the Police Auditor. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint councilors Zelenka, Clark, Ortiz, and Solomon to serve on a subcommittee of the council with the Civilian Re- view Board and Police Auditor. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT K M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency McNutt Room 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 12, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka (via telephone), and Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor, George Poling Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:02 p.m. A. WORK SESSION: Road Fund Status and FY10 Budget Strategy City Manager Jon Ruiz noted that the budget process surrounding the Road Fund had been ongoing and required creative input to ensure the operation of the City’s street system. Mr. Ruiz introduced Public Works Director Kurt Corey, who presented “City of Eugene Transportation System Funding” chart information for the council. He reminded them of the three main components of the transportation system funding process: operations and maintenance, capital preservation and new streets/enhanced capacity. Mr. Corey further noted that his comments in the work session would focus primarily on funding issues related to Transportation System Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Mr. Corey briefly reviewed the funding sources for the O&M activities as listed in the “Financial and/or Resource Considerations” section of the agenda item summary. He commented that the projected cost of O&M services for FY08 was slightly in excess of $10 million but that projected revenues for O&M were slightly less than $7 million. Mr. Corey noted that while funds from O&M could be transferred into capital preservation and vice versa, neither of those sections could be used to fund new streets/enhanced capacity. Mr. Corey noted that the roughly $3 million revenue shortfall for O&M was the result of decreases in the State highway trust fund and Oregon Transportation Investment Act III (OTIA) revenues, the loss of funding partnerships with Lane County and various increases in operating costs. Mr. Zelenka phoned in to the work session at 12:10 p.m. Mr. Corey said that the O&M funding shortfall would need to be addressed for FY10. Mr. Corey provided an overview of Public Works’ recent strategies to assess the budget shortfall as described in the “Cost- Containment and Efficiency Initiatives” section of the agenda item summary. He added that the council subcommittee formed after the completion of those initiatives had recommended a variety of additional strategies including a 3% local gas tax, a parking transportation utility fee, lighting fees for street lights, an additional bond measure, and a solid waste collection surcharge. MINUTES: Eugene City Council November 12, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Corey noted that the current set of Transportation System recommendations were designed to address the $4 million O&M budget shortfall for FY10. He then directed the council to the description of the “Illustrative Effects of $4 Million Service Reductions” section of the agenda item summary and Attachment A to the summary, Examples of Service Impacts in a $4.0 Million Road Fund Budget Reduction Scenario by Order of Magnitude, which described the reductions in greater detail. Mr. Corey noted that the services listed in the reduction breakdown had not been prioritized, and further noted that the reductions did not appear to be scalable in any feasible way. Mr. Corey briefed the council on the two interim funding strategy revenue options from the agenda item summary: franchise fees on City and other utilities and a surcharge on garbage haulers. He noted that the garbage surcharge option had been brought before the council in 2007 and failed in a 5 to 4 vote, but that Public Works still felt it was a viable option to consider. Mr. Corey noted that the utility franchise fee option would make use of an existing billing system and subsequently require significantly lower overhead costs than other revenue options. Mr. Corey, in describing the process of the garbage surcharge revenue option, restated for the council that it was based on the assumption of a clear nexus between garbage haulers and the impact on local transportation systems. He added that the garbage surcharge option, like the franchise fees, would make use of pre-existing billing systems in order to save on overhead costs. Mr. Corey noted that lighting fees, transportation utility fees based on parking spaces, and a re-allocation of the City’s five-cent gas tax, continued to be considered as possible revenue options as well. Mr. Corey noted that the council could also chose to divert revenue from the City’s General Fund to O&M expenditures as described in the agenda item summary. Mr. Corey noted that the supplemental O&M funding that Lane County Public Works had received Lane through the County’s Secure Rural Schools program would suffer significant reductions over the next four years before potentially ceasing altogether. Therefore, revival of the historic County/City partnership payment was unlikely. Mr. Corey noted that O&M funding from the State legislature in the form of Governor Kulongoski’s proposed Jobs Transportation Act of 2009 might be forthcoming as well. Mr. Corey noted that, absent any significantly altered direction from the council, Public Works would proceed with the fourth council option from the agenda item summary: to develop the FY10 Road Fund budget based on funding assumptions to include one or more of the proposed new revenues, some modest efficiency savings and service realignments and, if necessary, and only after further Council discussion, redirection of a minor portion of the local gas tax proceeds to fund on-going street operations and maintenance services. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Clark regarding what funding might be forthcoming from the State legislature, noted that there was endless debate regarding the matter, but that the Governor’s proposed plan included a two-cent fuel tax increase as well as increased vehicle registration fees. Mr. Corey maintained that while a City gas tax would be more favorable to Eugene than a state gas tax, gas taxes overall would most likely become a less consistent revenue source for state and local governments in the coming years. Mr. Clark noted that the council had anticipated the shortfalls for the Road Fund and the FY10 O&M budgets, but that he was reluctant to add new local taxes in light of recently passed bond measures. In addition to his measured support of the fourth option before the council, Mr. Clark noted that he was also in support of the third option to redirect portions of existing revenue sources. MINUTES: Eugene City Council November 12, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Corey, responding to a request from Ms. Piercy, clarified the State revenue proposals being discussed by noting that the distribution of the potential revenue would end up as 50% for the State, 30% for counties, and 20% for cities. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, reported that the service impact list previously discussed had not been reviewed by the City’s Risk Services Division and that the illustrative service reductions on the list had not been prioritized or similarly evaluated by any City agency. Ms. Bettman worried that some of the proposed reduced services might expose the City to potential liabilities and that any lawsuit indirectly resulting from service reductions could completely wipe out any potential savings. Ms. Bettman said the City should investigate other previously suggested revenue options such as transportation system development charges (SDC) and a re-evaluation of the SDC credits offered to developers in the area. Ms. Bettman noted that Lane County did not charge any SDC’s and that the City might assist the County in doing so sometime in the future. Ms. Bettman felt the Public Works department should reconsider concrete as opposed to asphalt for its transportation system projects. She added that Public Works should cease its assumptions of jurisdiction over County roads as it only exposed the City to greater liability. Mr. Pryor noted he would like more information on the various issues of legality involved with imposing transportation SDC’s at the city level. He further noted that he was very concerned about budget shortfalls for the capital preservation of existing City streets, and for which SDC’s could not be used. Mr. Pryor felt that the revenue necessary to adequately provide for the Road Fund and the FY10 budget could not be found in service reductions alone and that the need to find new sources of City revenue for transportation systems was great. Mr. Zelnka agreed with Mr. Pryor’s statements and felt the service reductions put the City too deeply in a hole to rely on cuts alone. He added that the recently passed bond measures for streets might help the problem, but it would ultimately be necessary to find new sources of revenue. He noted that the street utility fee recently suggested by a council transportation subcommittee might be a potential source of revenue for transportation systems. Ms. Bettman indicated she had not read Governor Kulongoski’s proposed transportation bill, and asked if it would be dedicated to a specific transportation purpose or used towards different projects in the same manner as gas tax revenues. Mr. Corey responded that the bill would hopefully simply increase the amount of state money allocated to the cities through the State highway trust fund and, as such, could be used in a variety of ways for O&M transportation concerns. Mr. Ruiz concurred with Mr. Corey’s statement. Ms. Bettman felt the franchise fee or garbage surcharge revenue options before the council would be tantamount to asking the public to assume the debt for the O&M budgets, and indicated that she did not support either option. She maintained that the best revenue option from her perspective would be the parking space transportation utility fees previously suggested by the council transportation subcommittee. Ms. Bettman believed that the federal government would most likely begin to broaden its transportation policies in the coming years, and that subsequently the City would be wise to consider the use of streetcars should federal funding eventually be made available for such a purpose. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comment regarding the two revenue options, and noted that the City’s interests would be best served by a combination of service reduction/reorganization and new or enhanced MINUTES: Eugene City Council November 12, 2008 Page 3 Work Session revenue sources. He commented that the parking space transportation utility fees previously suggested by the council transportation subcommittee might be difficult to fairly assess. Mr. Zelenka commented that he was not hopeful that service reductions or similar reorganizations would be sufficient to address the Road Fund and FY10 budget problems. He felt that the street utility, garbage hauler, and franchise fees would be a good place to start with regard to potential new revenue sources. Ms. Piercy recognized that it was uncertain what federal and state commitments to the support of transportation system infrastructure would be in the future, but appreciated that the council desired to present a united front with the State legislature in addressing the budget problems. Mr. Ruiz commented that a transportation utility fee was a good idea that would require further discussion. He reminded the council that the City would be moving forward with creating the FY10 budget and that they would need to be making some tough decisions regarding it fairly soon. Mr. Clark commented that the City might have a better indication about the plans of the federal government as the time got closer to finalizing the FY10 budget in the spring. Mr. Zelenka said that a street utility fee should not be postponed any longer and that the council should direct staff to begin preparations for adoption and implementation of such a fee as soon as possible. The meeting adjourned at 12:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES: Eugene City Council November 12, 2008 Page 4 Work Session