HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes
Meeting Date: April 13, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2A
Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, February 9,
2009, City Council Meeting, February 17, 2009, City Council Meeting, February 23, 2009, Work
Session, February 25, 2009, Executive Session, March 2, 2009, Executive Session, March 2, 2009,
Regular Session, and March 3, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A.January 27, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting
B.February 9, 2009, City Council Meeting
C.February 17, 2009, City Council Meeting
D.February 23, 2009, Work Session
E.February 25, 2009, Executive Session
F.March 2, 2009, Executive Session
G.March 2, 2009, Regular Session
H.March 3, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting
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\M090413\S0904132A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
M I N U T E S
Joint Elected Officials
Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council/
Lane Board of County Commissioners/Lane Rural Fire Rescue Board of Directors
Eugene Emergency Services Center—1705 West Second Avenue
January 27, 2009
5:30 p.m.
EUGENE CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka,
Mike Clark, Chris Pryor, George Brown.
SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie, Joe Pishioneri,
Dave Ralston, John Woodrow
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Faye Stewart, Peter Sorenson, Bill Fleenor, Rob Handy. Bill Dwyer
was excused.
LANE RURAL FIRE/RESCUE BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESENT: Larry vonMoos, Ray Brown
Kevin King, Marvin King, Pete Holmes.
I. CONVENE
Andre LeDuc, director of the University of Oregon Emergency Management Program, introduced himself
and announced he would serve as the facilitator of this evening’s Joint Elected Officials (JEO) Meeting. He
looked forward to sharing useful information and having a lively discussion about ambulance transport
service, an important issue for the community.
II. CALL TO ORDER—FOUR GOVERNING BODIES
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council and thanked everyone for
their attendance.
His Honor Mayor Sid Leiken convened the meeting of the Springfield City Council.
Board of County Commissioners Chair Peter Sorenson called the board back into session from earlier in
the day. He stated that Commissioner Dwyer had a meeting conflict and was excused from the JEO
meeting.
President Larry vonMoos called the Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors to order. He expressed the
appreciation of the board for this evening’s meeting.
Mr. LeDuc introduced Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 1
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
III. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS—Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy
Chief Murphy reviewed the history of ambulance service for the area.. On May 1, 1981, Eugene,
Springfield and Central Lane County witnessed the collapse of the regional service system that had been
operated for over 26 years by a private company. In just a few hours, local fire departments pooled their
resources and initiated emergency ambulance operations. In 1983, the fire departments, working together,
won a state award for top performance and in 1985 were named number one in the nation for advanced life
support ambulance systems. Additional accomplishments included:
?
Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan area fire departments were the first to develop programs in ad-
vanced cardiac care that were adopted statewide, nationally and internationally.
?
The FireMed system was initiated to ensure that all people, regardless of their income, could afford
to call for 9-1-1 ambulance service without worrying about the cost.
FireMed had since spread to over 80 ambulance service areas in Oregon and California. In 1997, Fortune
magazine recognized this area as one of the ten best areas to live for people who were at risk of suffering
sudden cardiac arrest. The purpose of this evening’s meeting was to review issues that unless resolved,
could lead to a destabilization of one of the nation’s premier emergency medical service systems. The
current financial crisis started in 1998 when Congress passed legislation that began a reduction of
reimbursement for ambulance services, followed by a subsequent reduction in 2003. The reductions
following the negative impacts of the current economy must be dealt with to ensure the quality of service
continued. Although each local jurisdiction had already taken steps to address the problem, tonight a new
effort of joint problem-solving commenced. It was fitting that a regional problem was dealt with
collaboratively by the region’s governments with the strength of past partnerships that had resulted in the
program’s success. He noted the appropriateness of the scheduling of tonight’s meeting, because January
27, 2009, had been declared by Oregon Governor Ted Kulongowski as Fire Service Appreciation Day.
IV. POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
Eugene Fire Chief Randy Groves expressed his appreciation to those in attendance and acknowledged that
elected officials were called upon to spend their evenings working for the betterment of the community. He
reiterated the long-standing tradition in the central Lane County area of working together to build a world
class emergency medical service (EMS) system that provided an experienced, stable workforce which
brought a host of clinical sophistication to bear on medical emergencies.
Chief Groves offered an overview of the issues before the JEOs with a PowerPoint presentation entitled
Central Lane County Ambulance Service Summit. He said there were several policy questions to be
addressed:
?
Was ambulance transport considered a core service for local governments to provide?
?
What level of pre-hospital care should be provided for our communities?
?
Was there a more appropriate delivery model for our system?
?
Should ambulance transport fees continue to augment general fund fire and rescue services?
?
How should the ambulance transport system be funded?
Chief Groves emphasized the importance of the three fire and EMS agencies working collaboratively and
why it was important to deal with the problems together. Current issues facing the agencies included:
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 2
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
?
Medicare and Medicaid reduced reimbursements accounted for more than 65 percent of all trans-
ports.
?
Unfunded mandates:
Decreasing federal money to pay for federal programs.
o
Increasing state requirements for EMT recertification.
o
County designated metro/rural ASA, one level of service.
o
Medical Control Board established protocols/procedures.
o
?
Calls for ambulance transport services had increased over 40 percent since 2003.
?
Effects of under-insured/uninsured/indigent patients.
?
Costs of increased technical sophistication and equipment.
Chief Groves noted the region’s ambulance transport system had evolved over time and was completely
integrated with the community’s fire, rescue, hazardous materials, and emergency medical response
programs, thus enhancing the entire system’s response capabilities.
Chief Groves reviewed the emergency tiered response that consisted of:
?
Advanced Life Support (ALS)/Basic Life Support (BLS) First Response—provided by a fire
suppression company.
?
ALS Medic Unit (ambulance)—provided treatment and transport.
?
Air Ambulance—provided patient transport via helicopter.
Chief Groves said emergency medical calls were resource intensive, adding patients received critical care in
the field which had proven to decrease morbidity and mortality. He said there were eight Ambulance
Service Areas (ASA) in Lane County designated by the BCC under the authority of the State of Oregon.
The areas under discussion tonight included ASA 4—Eugene; ASA 5—Springfield; and, ASA 8—Lane
Rural Fire and Rescue.
Chief Groves provided a review of Lane County ASA 4. ASA 4 covered 432 square miles, and responded
to 17,213 calls for service in FY08. System issues facing Eugene, similar to Springfield and Lane County,
included:
?
Eugene’s current fee-supported Ambulance Transport System (ATS) was not sustainable long
term, with operating costs outpacing revenues.
?
Eugene’s existing resource-based ambulance service had inadequate capacity to keep pace with the
current call volume and workload.
?
Calls for service were increasing.
?
Ambulance transports were decreasing due to a state requirement that patients be advised of the
cost of transport, better scene triage, and some transports to Sacred Heart Hospital previously pro-
vided by Eugene were now provided to the new RiverBend campus by Springfield.
Chief Groves reviewed the three types of units used by Eugene Fire and EMS: three dual-role medic units,
two single-role medic units, and one overload company. Approximately 44 percent of dollars billed were
collected and fund reserves had steadily declined since 2000, with the exception of 2006, when a rate
increase was implemented. Funding sources for FY09 consisted of:
?
General fund: 75 percent.
?
Ambulance Transport Fund: 21 percent.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 3
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
?
Other funds: 4 percent.
Chief Murphy asserted the City of Springfield faced similar challenges to those of the City of Eugene and
provided a review of Lane County ASA 5. ASA 5 consisted of a large rural area that covered 2,000 square
miles and responded to 8,557 calls for service in FY08. System issues facing Springfield included:
?
Operating expenses continued to outpace revenues.
?
Revenue from FireMed and contract billing was used to help offset the inadequate Medicare and
Medicaid reimbursement for ambulance services.
?
Ambulance personnel were essential for minimum firefighter staffing.
?
If not for ambulance user and membership fees, what other sources of revenue could be used to
provide the current level of fire department incident response coverage?
Chief Murphy explained that the Springfield Fire and Life Safety operated with three multi-role medic units
and one overload company. Approximately 38 percent of dollars billed were collected and fund reserves
had steadily declined since 2000. Funding sources for FY09 consisted of:
?
General fund: 61 percent.
?
Ambulance Transport Fund: 31 percent.
?
Other funds: 8 percent.
Chief Murphy emphasized the three ambulance companies backed each other up with borrowed equipment
which provided significantly enhanced depth that would otherwise not be available. Statistically, demand
in Eugene and Springfield did not occur simultaneously, providing the ability to provide backup for the
other jurisdiction.
Chief Borland averred Lane Rural Fire/Rescue faced similar challenges to those of the cities of Eugene and
Springfield, and provided a review of Lane County ASA 8. ASA 8 consisted of a large rural area that
covered 2,000 square miles and responded to 2,294 calls for service in FY08. System issues facing Lane
Rural Fire/Rescue included:
?
Department’s current fee-supported ATS was not sustainable long term.
?
At what level should the general fund continue to support medical response and transport?
?
Were there alternative funding sources?
Chief Borland explained Lane Rural Fire/Rescue operated with two dual-role medic units and fire
suppression and emergency medical response provided by approximately 60 volunteer firefighters.
Approximately 45 percent of dollars billed were collected and expenditures were outpacing revenues.
Funding sources for FY09 consisted of:
?
Tax payments: 57 percent.
?
Ambulance Revenue: 45 percent.
Chief Borland reviewed trends and solutions for regional ambulance transport service:
Trends:
?
Calls for service were increasing.
?
Operating and administrative costs were increasing.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 4
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
?
Medicare age population was growing.
?
Number of uninsured and under-insured patients was growing. Increased on-scene triage resulting
in fewer transports.
Potential Short-Term Solutions:
?
Increase ambulance transport fees.
?
Tax support (General Fund).
?
First response fees.
?
Sub-contracting inter-facility, non-emergent transports freeing up fire based resources.
Potential Long-Term Solutions:
?
Higher ambulance transport fees.
?
Consolidate/merge department functions.
?
Create ambulance service taxing district.
?
Create a fire district or authority that incorporates ambulance transport into its base budget.
?
Continue Congressional lobbying efforts to increase Medicare/Medicaid payments.
?
Reconfigure ASA boundaries (urban/rural split).
?
Develop an alternative service delivery model.
?
New membership initiatives/programs.
V. SCHEDULED SPEAKERS
Mr. LeDuc introduced the evening’s scheduled speakers:
Robert Leopold, EMS Director, Oregon Department of Health and Human Services, said when someone in
Oregon called 9-1-1, they expected to have a competent, trustworthy person show up with correct
equipment. That person also needed to be able to communicate with the hospital emergency department to
ensure care initiated in the field continued at the hospital. It was extremely important to maintain these
systems which the citizens relied on 24 hours a day. Funding health care was a challenge nationally, even
before the current economic crisis. Rural communities that provided care entirely through volunteer
systems in Oregon were finding the systems were not sustainable and urban areas were facing funding
crises. The Oregon EMS and Trauma Systems Program were committed to working with chiefs and
community leaders to find a way to make a sustainable EMS system.
Tim Herrmann, Hospital Administrator, Sacred Heart Medical Center (SHMC) University District, stated
SHMC was experiencing many of the same challenges expressed by the chiefs. He offered a PowerPoint
presentation which illustrated those challenges. SHMC was also on a capitated payment schedule for
Medicare and Medicaid resulting in reimbursements that were below costs, which was not a sustainable
trend. SHMC was challenged by approximately $66 million annually of charity bad debt. Additionally,
the increased number of surgery centers in the area shifted patients with the ability to pay for services out
of the hospital. Peace Health provided a majority of the behavioral health services for the region which
were threatened by inadequate funding.
Scott Olmos, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) local 851, representing
Eugene and Lane Rural firefighters, welcomed elected officials to the summit and thanked Mayor Piercy,
Councilor Ortiz and Chief Groves for recognizing the gravity of the situation. He represented a highly
trained professional work group of Eugene firefighters and paramedics who responded to thousands of calls
annually. Many citizens who had inadequate or no health care relied on EMS transport as their first line of
health care. Capacity and workloads were at an unmanageable level for all firefighters and paramedics
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 5
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
whom he represented, and had been for too long. Many patients had the means to pay for ambulance
transport service and the once adequate source of funding could no longer sustain EMS in the Eugene area.
The City, the union and the stakeholders had previously met to discuss the situation, and the union had
determined there was only one viable alternative to solve the EMS crisis in Eugene. EMS must be
designated as a core essential service. EMS transport must no longer be funded from an enterprise fund.
The current system did not differentiate between various types of calls. Highly trained paramedics who
responded to life threatening injuries and illnesses were also dispatched to inter-facility and non-emergency
medical calls for which the department no longer had the capacity. The City of Eugene deserved an
ambulance transport system to focus on life threatening emergencies. The current practice of sending City
of Eugene paramedics well into the county was no longer a sustainable practice. Public safety was not and
should not be in the business of making money and saving lives and was not an enterprise. He urged
adoption of the following:
?
Designation by the City Council of ambulance transport as an essential service funded appropriate-
ly.
?
Eugene Fire Department paramedics must continue to provide first response advance life support
services and advanced life support transport.
?
The City must expand its contract with private providers to include non-emergency, BLS support
transportation and inter-facility transports.
?
The City must immediately discontinue dispatching Eugene paramedics outside of the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB).
Kevin Grey, IAFF local 1395, representing Springfield firefighters, welcomed everyone in attendance. The
impacts of the decisions that came out of this forum would last for many years. He believed Springfield
provided the highest quality of care on the streets which could not be matched by any other service
provider. Capacity issues had been addressed by Chief Murphy and the Springfield City Council.
Ambulances on the street had increased since 2003 to meet the community’s demand. There was an
economic climate as well as the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement issue that needed to be faced by
everyone. Currently, Springfield had the capacity to handle the call volume and was not as stressed with
the workload issue as Eugene. Springfield currently operated the best system possible with the dollars
spent and any reductions would be detrimental to patient care. He looked forward to a positive outcome
from the forum and did not want to see any drastic changes to the system.
Susie Robinson, representing Oregon State Ambulance Association, provided a PowerPoint presentation
that highlighted the funding challenges association members faced and the medical fee schedule. Changes
in service levels and fee schedules implemented in 2003 have had a significant impact on ambulance service
revenues. Possible solutions included:
?
Rate increases.
?
Subsidies.
?
Reduced response time requirements.
?
Other expense reductions.
Mr. LeDuc thanked the presenters.
The group took a break from 6:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
VI. QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 6
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
Mr. LeDuc reconvened the meeting and explained the ground rules for the Question and Answer session.
He introduced resource people in attendance: Dr. Melissa Doherty, supervising physician for Eugene Fire
and EMS; Dr. Rob Rockstroh, director, Lane County Health and Human Services; Mike Griffiths, chief
executive officer, Life Flight; Mike Collins, Pacific Northwest Division general manager, Rural/Metro
Ambulance; Dr. Eric Spencer, McKenzie Willamette Medical Center, and Maurine Cate, chief executive
officer, McKenzie Willamette Medical Center.
Chief Groves said the goal of the meeting was to educate the policy makers on what the problems were,
present some potential solutions, and be able to identify substantial steps to address the problems on a
regional basis by the end of the meeting.
Medical Director of the Emergency Department at SHMC Dr. Gary Young, said he represented Eugene
Emergency Physicians who provide emergency care at both SHMC campuses, and Peace Health Sacred
Heart. He acknowledged there had been significant changes in 2008 with the move to RiverBend. He
noted that emergency rooms (ER) at both campuses were staffed with ER physicians and nurses, and
assured everyone that patients brought to the University District campus would receive the same high level
of care as those taken to the RiverBend campus. He opined some of the more stable patients could be taken
to the University District facility. He thanked the paramedics and others involved in the EMS system and
apologized for any difficulty that may have occurred during the transition period. He noted the City of
Eugene supported CAHOOTS, which responded to many behavioral and social problems. He thought if
Springfield and other local governments would support CAHOOTS, it would take away many of the calls
responded to by paramedics that were not medical in nature. He thanked those present for treating everyone
the same which was a core value of our health care system. He encouraged everyone to support national
health insurance to provide access to care for everyone thus preventing many calls to
9-1-1 or ER visits. He supported these comments offered earlier:
?
First responder fees for 9-1-1 which do not result in ambulance transport to a hospital.
?
Ambulance service should not extend beyond the UGB.
?
Support for subcontracting for BLS, interfaculty transfers and non-emergency calls between
hospitals and hospitals and nursing homes.
He thanked Life Flight for providing air ambulance services and critical ground support to the community.
Commissioner Sorenson asked if Lane County using its taxing authority to levy a real property tax in
support of ambulance EMS was an option since raising fees for service was not the answer,
Chief Groves responded that Lane County providing taxing authority would be addressed through creation
of an ambulance service district. Raising current rates was not cost effective because it cost six dollars to
increase rates one dollar. Additionally, as rates increase, the service would become less affordable for
more people, turning the cost from a debt that could be paid to a bad debt.
Commissioner Sorenson asked what amount of property tax was needed to prevent a fee for service
increase.
Chief Groves said the number was not available. However, the Lane Fire Defense Board, an organization
comprised of all of the fire chiefs in Lane County, had agreed to contract with the Lane Council of
Governments (LCOG) to conduct an ambulance district study. The study was deferred until after the
Ambulance Transport Summit to have some direction from the elected officials.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 7
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
Chief Murphy observed the Western Lane Ambulance District was funded by the district’s tax support,
user fees, and a program that cooperated with FireMed called Life Care.
Commissioner Fleenor thanked Mayor Piercy and Councilor Ortiz for arranging for the summit. He asked
why the reasonable charge method was changed to a fee for service method.
Chief Murphy said reasonable charge and fee for service were Medicare terms. Reasonable charge was
equivalent to reduced Medicare reimbursement rates across the board. Medicare broke the bank. He
suggested elected officials would need to compare all ALS ambulances in Lane County with ambulances
that were BLS with a driver who was not even a basic Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and response
times not considered legal in Oregon on the east coast of the United States to determine if charges were
reasonable. He opined Congress’ intent was not to pick on 9-1-1 services, but rather balance the entire
Medicare system.
Commissioner Fleenor asserted costs could be reduced by increasing response time. He asked who
established minimum response time requirement standards.
Chief Groves stated local jurisdictions set the standards by working with the local medical control boards.
There were longer response times related to how far people lived from service providers. Outcomes for
critical care cases were proportional to patients’ distance from service providers.
Chief Murphy added the BCC through its ambulance service area designation established response time
standards for urban, suburban, rural and frontier locations. Those standards were currently realistic and
followed by the providers. In order to save a life, the agencies were heavily dependent on first responders
in seventeen rural fire districts surrounding central Lane County that provided care prior to arrival of
ambulances from the urban area. Inside the cities, by ordinance, the response times were set by the cities of
Springfield and Eugene.
Commissioner Fleenor asked theoretically if the budget could be balanced by increasing the response times.
Chief Murphy said it was more than a theoretical concept, and the answer was yes, it could be done and it
was a matter of public policy from a standpoint of resources. The cities and the county had set an
expectation. He added it was also a matter of public policy on what should be done to save lives when it
took longer to respond.
Commissioner Fleenor asked how often policy makers met to consider the response time issue.
Chief Murphy said the ambulance service area was initiated in compliance with state law in the early
1980’s. The system had been upgraded and response time standards for urban, suburban, rural and
frontier locations had been reset twice since then. The Eugene City Council and Springfield City Council
had met five times on the issue since 1981 and had made adjustments.
Chief Groves said for Eugene’s ASA, and a population approaching 190,000 people, the City of Eugene
had three ambulances. He said that capacity had been exceeded the previous night due to a critical
incident, and that occurred frequently. He opined the department was already marginally staffed.
Councilor Clark thanked fire personnel and staff and other providers for attending this evening’s meeting to
help elected officials identify the issues. He averred ambulance transport was a core service. He asked
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 8
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
who decided the ASA borders and what percentage of the calls were social and behavioral issues that could
be better served by other responders.
Chief Murphy said the BCC determined the ASA borders.
Chief Groves added although coding issues made it difficult to make a precise assessment, the number of
responses for social and behavioral issues was increasing as there were more people on the streets and
down on their luck. As the social service systems in the country and the community continued to crumble,
the problem was getting worse. The social and behavior issue calls were frequently given to CAHOOTS.
It was not productive use of the EMS system, including the hospitals, to take social and behavioral patients
to the ER. EMS personnel attempted to direct people to other sources of help including Buckley House.
Chief Murphy stated that over 25 percent of the time when called out, his agency did not do transports.
The system responded in good faith to 9-1-1 calls where initial triage occurred with final triage occurring at
the scene.
Chief Groves said a challenge for 9-1-1 was that they could only deal with the information they were given,
which often was very little, and people in the field were good with triage.
Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for attending yet another evening meeting. She asked the BCC to place
the ASA on a future agenda for reevaluation. She did not support a fee for 9-1-1 calls that did not result in
transport noting that people often waited for a long time before calling. Based on her professional
experience in hospital emergency rooms, sick people who should have called 9-1-1 drove themselves when
they should not have. She emphasized the need to continue to lobby the Congressional delegation for
higher Medicare reimbursement. She observed Springfield had a lower population than Eugene while it had
the same number of medic units.
Mr. Grey said Springfield’s ambulance capacity fit the city’s needs.
Councilor Ortiz asked if Lane Rural Fire/Rescue District had the capacity to infill the areas between the
UGB and designated service areas.
Chief Borland responded although the district did not currently have the staffing to provide the service it
could review the issue for future implementation.
Councilor Ortiz appreciated the comments from the IAFF representatives and supported continuing to
provide adequate EMS to the community. She agreed ambulance transport service was a core service. The
voters in Eugene expected a high quality of service and as an elected official she would do her best to
ensure it continued.
Commissioner Stewart appreciated this conversation. He said some of the small rural districts he
represented struggled with the same issues brought forward tonight. He asked if it was possible to look at
the issue as a Lane County issue rather than focusing on the three districts represented tonight. He asked if
a countywide ambulance district would be the answer for everyone’s problems. Based on the finance
information presented he thought a $1.28 per thousand assessed property value might be a viable figure to
provide ambulance service countywide for $32 million. He asserted ambulance service was a core service.
Increasing response times to balance the budget was not acceptable when every minute counted. Dimi-
nished service would impact life and death.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 9
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
Chief Groves clarified that while the City of Eugene billed $12 million, only 44 percent was collected. He
acknowledged going countywide was worthy of consideration. The proposal was brought forward from
ASA 4, 5, and 8 as a means to start the conversation.
Chief Murphy thought the proposed LCOG study would reveal the cost would be less than $.75 per
thousand assessed property value.
Councilor Zelenka was intrigued by Commissioner Stewart’s proposal. He asked how the governance in
such a system would work. He asked what the implications of the ASAs were and if pulling them back to
the UGB, which he assumed would result in more ASAs, would be predominantly rural. He asked who
determined the level of service in each ASA.
Chief Groves said the governance structure would be researched and determined at a later date. Chief
Groves said the standards were developed by the BCC but the individual city councils established their own
targets for levels of service based on the BCC requirements.
Chief Murphy said Salem was surrounded by nine ambulance districts and did not provide the level of
service provided by Lane Rural Fire/Rescue. The Stayton BLS was all volunteer personnel. If the ASAs
were pulled back to the UGB, the Lane County system would resemble that of the Salem area. The level of
sophistication in Lane County was unmatched in the state. Many off-duty firefighters volunteered in the
rural districts and provided paramedic care in first response situations. The rural life support project was
founded in Lane County in 1983 and exported around the state and the country. It provided a talented
group of providers who offered care before arrival of ALS and had reinforced the existing system. The
high cost of providing ambulance service was left to those who had the financial means to pay for it, and
the first response was affordable for the rural areas. Ambulance providers pooled a revenue source in
FireMed and funded the medical care equipment fund for central Lane County.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if calls for service in the rural areas that resulted in Life Flight being called by
Springfield EMS was a billable event for Springfield EMS.
Chief Murphy said the response in the Cougar area was provided by the United States Forest Service
(USFS) group called the Emergency Action Service. They were a rural non-profit organization that
provided first response in rural areas staffed mostly by USFS personnel. They could generally respond 40
minutes before the Springfield EMS and would make an initial assessment. If Life Flight was called,
Springfield EMS would be waived off before arrival.
Mr. Griffiths said if Life Flight was requested by a fire department to transport a patient, and the patient
was put on an aircraft, it was a billable event. He said 9-1-1 protocol called for transport of patients to the
closest appropriate medical facility as decided by medical control. Fixed wing aircraft currently were not
used for 9-1-1 calls in this area, but typically were used for inter-facility transports for longer distances or
those that were not suitable for helicopter transport.
Chief Murphy said Life Flight contributed over $100,000 to the local fire departments to offset any lost
revenue. He added his department could bill if it was called and rendered care prior to the arrival of Life
Flight.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 10
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
Mayor Piercy asked for a definition of the legal meaning of core services. Before changing the ASA, she
wanted to be sure what happened in any “give and get” negotiation. The current system seemed to be
working well and should not be compromised. She asked if that system would be compromised in a quest
to deal with financial issues. She would be concerned about sharing jurisdictional oversight with an
ambulance district and supported the proposed LCOG study. She asked if the public was well enough
educated about ways to get information about the state of their health other than going to the ambulance
service and emergency room.
Chief Groves did not know if there was a legal determination for core services. Core or essential services
consisted of anything provided for the health and welfare of the community.
Chief Murphy said CAHOOTS was an example of an alternative delivery that was working. He thought
there was a place for CAHOOTS in Springfield as a smart alternative service provider.
Councilor Poling shared the following observations:
?
He hoped any discussion at the City of Eugene would be about decreasing rather than increasing
response times. Monetary gain from increasing the response time did not come anywhere near the
cost of a life.
?
Since starting his law enforcement career in 1972, he had seen great improvements in emergency
medical care. He thanked Fire and EMS personnel and ER staff for their efforts on behalf of the
community. The community had one of the finest EMS systems around.
?
He appreciated the efforts of Fire administration and union members for working together to
develop a solution on the problem rather than being at loggerheads as in the past.
?
He thanked the City of Springfield for handling 850 calls annually outside of its ASA, the majority
of which were likely in the City of Eugene.
?
He agreed with Commissioner Stewart’s suggestion of expanding EMS throughout the county.
?
He asked if any of the three chiefs saw tonight’s conversation growing into a conversation to
expand into all Fire and EMS services.
Chief Groves said the chiefs had had those discussions and were looking for common points for Eugene and
Springfield to come together, including training and the Fire Marshal, to gain efficiencies and improve
services, especially during times of tight finances.
Chief Murphy suggested options could be offered to the city councils that would not lead to service
reductions or increased fees.
Commissioner Fleenor was for saving lives with available resources but regardless of resources people
died. There were a limited amount of resources in Lane County and they were becoming less every day in
the current economy. It could be three or four years before improvement is seen. Trying to form a
countywide district was “pie in the sky” and it was not reasonable to think the jurisdictions could provide a
response time that was appropriate in the rural communities. The issue needed to be looked at from a view
of what was reasonable today and not next year. He felt everyone needed to live within available resources.
The current fiscal environment was not suitable to talk about expansion.
Councilor Ortiz sought an explanation of the contract for non-emergency transport and for the practice of
advising people at the scene what the cost of transport would be.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 11
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
Chief Groves said advising people at the scene what the cost of transport would be had started with a
change in the state law to inform patients. The non-emergency transport contract for the City of Eugene
was a cost avoidance model to reduce costs for non-emergency transports from skilled nursing facilities
since over 80 percent of the skilled nursing facilities in the area were located in the Eugene ASA which
created a lot of transports between the care facilities and the hospitals. Staff was in the process of
negotiating a contract with Rural/Metro Ambulance that would help alleviate the call load and free up
limited emergency resources.
In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Collins explained calls for Rural/Metro Ambulance
service would be routed to a number other than the 9-1-1 system, where they would be dispatched directly
from Rural/Metro’s site to the calling agency or individual.
Chief Murphy said the skilled nursing facilities were currently clustered around the SHMC University
District but this might change over time with the opening of the SHMC RiverBend campus. Springfield
Fire and Life Safety would reevaluate the situation and be prepared to respond to those changes. He
supported the decision by Eugene and thought it a smart business decision.
Councilor Taylor did not think a district would work and people would not want it. She asked if the
mileage was included in the cost of transport. She asked if universal health care would solve the problem.
She asked what happened when people who were not indigent and did not have health insurance did not pay
the bill. She asked if a person who did not ask for or want an ambulance but was transported, would be
responsible for paying the bill.
Chief Groves explained there was a base rate and a mileage factor used to calculate the cost of transport.
Universal health care would go a long way in solving the problem. Unpaid bills were turned over for
collection. Staff tried to work with people to satisfy the obligation before turning accounts over for
collection. People could decline service. However, if a person was unconscious, under state law, that was
implied consent, and they were treated and transported on the theory they wanted to be saved.
Commissioner Handy thanked Councilor Ortiz for understanding the urgency of the situation in the
community. He said the County needed to live within its means, and he was hearing that from the
community. At the same time, people also wanted services. The County was looking for things to bubble
up from the grass roots to bring issues to the BCC and put on the ballot. It was important to work with the
state legislature and federal partners. A hospital was needed on the west side of Eugene to deal with
transport distances. City services were excellent and should not be compromised. Urban services not
going outside of the UGB needed to be looked at. If a countywide district was considered, a tiered structure
should be considered to address urban/rural interface. He wanted to know what the impacts of compres-
sion related to Ballot Measure 50 would be on other services.
Mayor Leiken said Chief Murphy had always encouraged the City Council to talk with him, the IAFF
president and the City of Springfield firefighters. This was a unique culture and allowed the council to
make educated decisions for the community. He concurred with Commissioner Handy that compression
should be considered. He asked what would be the difference between an ambulance authority and a
special district. He understood a special district would be a separate entity than the local governments with
its own board and administration.
Chief Murphy cited the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) as an example of
how a fire service authority could operate through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with partner
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 12
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
agencies. He explained fire service authorities were in place in Washington and California, noting
Livermore and Pleasanton, California, which were very similar to Eugene and Springfield, with the
exception that their populations were closer in size, was a consolidated agency. The Livermore-Pleasanton
Fire Department was an unqualified success. Chief Murphy said Lane County had a unique opportunity
facing it. Many veteran Fire and EMS personnel were reaching retirement age presenting an opportunity to
combine services while not requiring service reductions. While none of the solutions would be easy or fast,
he asked the BBC, the City Councils, and Fire Boards to collaborate on developing a solution. He opined
he and Chiefs Borland and Groves were dedicated to developing a slate of options for the JEOs to achieve
consensus.
Mayor Leiken said although the JEOs were talking about costs, the public was demanding highly trained
professional paramedics who saved lives on the scene and transported people to the hospital, compared to
30 years ago. Costs continued to rise with training and equipment. He looked forward to continued
conversations on Fire and EMS and believed it was a core service. He asserted this issue was about
peoples’ lives and the elected officials needed to continue to hammer on the federal delegation. The federal
government had been turning its back on the cities for decades.
Commissioner Stewart, as a member of the MWMC, concurred with Chief Murphy that there were
successful models in place for a fire authority. He hoped all of the elected officials came tonight with an
open mind to solve problems for the community.
Commissioner Sorenson said one of the advantages of a small group was it could make decisions quickly.
He said the ambulance transport service issue would be placed on an upcoming BCC agenda. ASA options
would be reviewed by the County’s Public Health Advisory Committee and BCC. There was not much
“buy in” from the public if it perceived a district levy would benefit the County government in some way,
so it would be important to have sufficient support from all jurisdictions for placing a measure on the
ballot. Fire and EMS were among the most popular services provided by government so it might be easier
to pass as a ballot measure. He said compression was always a concern and it would impact many taxing
districts. Ballot Measures 5, 47 and 50 would not be modified until the Legislative Assembly referred a
measure to the voters or the citizens initiated something that modified those measures.
Councilor Clark clarified his statement that identifying Fire and EMS as core services identified those
services as ones people wanted to see funded first and thoroughly. He saw it as a core service that the
elected officials could not afford to get wrong. He thought establishing a special district would be difficult
because the public would have a difficult time with additional tax obligations for something they perceived
should be funded with the first dollars they paid in taxes. He averred additional support from the General
Fund was in order.
VII. FOLLOW-UP/NEXT STEPS
Chief Groves thanked everyone for taking their time to discuss important issues. The issue had been called
out for many years, and the agencies could not continue if a viable path was not identified. He suggested
that each of the jurisdictions appoint one or two elected officials to begin working with the chiefs and labor
to formulate a series of proposals to bring back to either the JEOs or individual elected bodies to discuss
and act upon.
VIII. CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. LeDuc thanked everyone for coming tonight and wished them success in addressing the issues before
them.
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 13
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
IX. ADJOURN
Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for their efforts and looked forward to taking the next steps. She said
everyone was proud of the services and the work of the people who provided those services. She thought
there was a strong desire for the jurisdictions to work together and was optimistic a solution would be
found. She adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 8:17 p.m.
Mayor Leiken thanked Mayor Piercy, the Eugene City Council and Eugene staff on behalf of the City of
Springfield and the Springfield City Council for hosting the event and for the excellent information
provided. He adjourned the meeting of the Springfield City Council at 8:17 p.m.
Commissioner Sorensen adjourned the Board of Commissioners at 8:17 p.m.
Mr. vonMoos thanked everyone for their participation and said the Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of
Directors would assist in any way it could. He adjourned the Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors
at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— January 27, 2009 Page 14
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Board of Directors and Eu-
gene and Springfield City Councils
ATTACHMENT B
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
February 9, 2009
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Jennifer
Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum.
John Brown
, Ward 5, thanked the councilors and mayor for their service to the community. He recalled his
testimony from two weeks earlier regarding the undue burden placed upon an elderly landowner who had
transients camping on her land. He reminded the council that she had tried for years to get the City to
respond to complaints and when the City had finally responded the landowner had been given ten days to
clean up the area at a cost of $7,000 to $12,000. He commented that the sad thing was that the transients
were already back; city employees were not able to return to the property to verify the mess without police
escorts. He stated that he had taken pictures of transient camps on public lands and had provided those
pictures to the council along with a request that the council clean them up within ten days. He related that
nothing had been done and the camps were still there. He emphasized that if the intent of the ordinance was
to protect the environment – the camps he had provided pictures of were within feet of class 1 streams with
protected or endangered species. He underscored that nothing had been done. He did not understand the
double standard in holding the private sector to a different set of rules. He averred that everyone should be a
good steward for the environment and no one should have a license to pollute. He noted that he had spoken
with Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary several times and city staff had been very cordial with him but
for him the bottom line was that nothing had been done.
Joe Collins
, P.O. Box 24411, commented that the council might have been “bamboozled.” He was referring
to the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street project. He recalled that area residents had not
wanted their streets to be called collector streets. He did not think the residents really knew why they did not
want the streets to be collectors. He had read an article that indicated that people who lived on collector
streets had to move their cars off the streets during snow storms. He thought this could be why those
residents opposed changing the street classification. He noted that all of the councilors except for Councilor
Solomon had voted against changing the street classification to collector. He added that he was appreciative
of the hearing device he was provided that allowed him to hear the council meetings and testimony.
Zachary Vishanoff
, Ward 3, provided the council with packets of information. He reviewed and hig-
hlighted the photocopied articles that the packet contained. He noted that a public workshop was planned
for the Walnut Node. He underscored his preference for a public hearing. He asked that the City provide
notice in advance about the workshop so that business owners and others along Franklin Boulevard who had
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 1
Regular Meeting
not supported the node could attend. He felt that the message the City would hear would be that “new
urbanism” was not the “vision for the neighborhood.” He also wanted to give feedback about the council’s
workshop. He supported reuse of the EWEB headquarters building for a City Hall. He believed public
support for doing so would be widespread. He asked Councilor Zelenka to elaborate on his vision for the
south University neighborhood. He said Councilor Zelenka had suggested that neighborhood “SWAT
Teams” be formed regarding development. He thought things were happening in closed door meetings.
Tim Laue
, 124 Spencers Crest Drive, wished to address the last item covered in the council’s work session,
regarding the use of the Facilities Reserve Fund to provide an updated police patrol facility. He stated that
he had been involved in the issue of safe, secure facilities for the essential services of the police for ten
years. He noted that he and Mr. Brown had chaired the committee for the first bond measure that had been
brought before the public. He said the bond measure had failed by less than 1,500 votes. He encouraged
the council to heed the Mayor’s advice on this discussion. He believed that it was essential that the council
come to its will with as much consensus as possible on the issue. He wanted the councilors to take the time
they would need to feel comfortable and confident in the decision they would make, even though they were
considering the use of the Facilities Reserve. He was confident that once the council received the informa-
tion it needed, the council would make the right decision. He said that, as mentioned in the work session,
there had been a lot of study done on the topic and it was important. He averred that being thoughtful and
deliberative in its decision-making would bring the community to support and even embrace the decision the
council would make.
Carol Berg-Caldwell
, 2510 Augusta Street, said she enjoyed attending the council goals setting session on
February 6 and 7. She had witnessed all participants – department heads, councilors, city counsel, and city
management – being committed to improving communication and building trust with the public. She had
heard people indicating a desire to be more receptive regarding public comment. She averred that some
people felt that the comment opportunities were just to humor the public. She acknowledged that the
occasional “rants and rambles” that were “harshly presented” could be difficult to “enjoy.” She saw at the
goals setting session that the council intended to “hear and value” all public input. She related that the
Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) had agreed to hold an hour-long session of “give
and take with the people” at its forum in response to public input.
Ms. Berg-Caldwell supported retrofitting City Hall immediately so that it would not “pancake” in an
earthquake. She felt that the City was “shovel ready” for this “least cost option” and should not spend $16
million on a new police facility. She averred that the current economy did not justify spending more city
funds than required to address the problem. She noted that the federal stimulus money was earmarked for
projects that were ready to go, another reason to pursue a retrofit of the existing building. She recalled that
voters had rejected bonds for a new facility twice, adding that “just because” the City had “found” $22
million in reserve accounts did not mean it should be done. She thought that the community would vote to
support a new facility when relations between police and community were improved. She opined that
implementing the oversight system the voters had supported would bring the City closer to that goal.
Drix
thanked the City for his three minutes. He loved Eugene. He noted that he lived in the West University
Neighborhood (WUN) which was full of young people “learning how to drink.” He said the house next to
him had been built in 1911 and, upon the death of its elderly owner, had been sold to someone who had
“been sitting on it” to make money. He related that it had been sold earlier in the week. He thought they
needed more people like him in the neighborhood, people who were not students. He said he encouraged the
younger people to pick up after themselves. He felt that a lot of people from other places just wanted to
make an investment and get a return and there were not enough permanent residents to ground the
neighborhood. He wanted more community. He remarked that there were too many sofas in peoples’ front
yards.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 2
Regular Meeting
Charles Biggs
, 540 Antelope Way, declared that the City needed more police officers and not more offices
for police officers. He said if the patrol cars were in jeopardy they should be moved out from beneath City
Hall. He questioned the likelihood of the entire patrol division being in the facility at the time of an
earthquake. He felt the risk was miniscule; officers spent a very short amount of time in the facility. He
opined that the possibility would not justify the cost of a new facility at this time. He noted that there was a
lot of space in the old fire facility. He urged the City to “use a little initiative” and “break down some
walls.” He said concerns about City Hall could be addressed by moving to the Centre Court Building, if the
Beam project went through. He thought the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) facility could be
utilized for the police department. He suggested that the Army Reserve building could be an option as well.
He averred that getting more officers on the road, in lieu of building more offices, could get more drunk
drivers off the road and avoid some of the tragedies that had recently happened.
Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She asked Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary to follow up on
the issue that Mr. Brown had brought forward to the council for the second time. Ms. Medary agreed to
discuss it with him.
Mayor Piercy was glad that the City provided hearing devices for individuals who were hard of hearing.
She had also been appreciative of the comments regarding the potential reuse of the EWEB headquarters
building and steam plant. She also expressed appreciation for Mr. Laue’s comments on consensus. She
added her thanks to Ms. Berg-Caldwell for her comments regarding the City Council Goals Setting Session.
She thought it might be possible to do more work on the City Hall issues with stimulus package money.
Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for coming to the council meeting and providing testimony. She thanked
Drix, adding that she wished there were more people like him out in the neighborhoods. She thanked Mr.
Brown for his advocacy on the part of the land owner with the transient camping issues and for holding the
City responsible for homeless camps on public lands. She agreed with Ms. Berg-Caldwell that the current
City Hall building should be retrofitted to life/safety standards as she believed this would only cost $2 to $3
million. She also agreed that it was unlikely that all of the police personnel and cars would be at City Hall
at the same time.
Councilor Zelenka clarified that his idea for a neighborhood “SWAT Team” had nothing to do with
development. He explained that he had suggested forming a team that could go into a neighborhood without
an active neighborhood association and help start one. He expressed appreciation for Ms. Berg-Caldwell’s
interest in the goal setting sessions, noting that she had attended both sessions in their entirety. He added his
appreciation for Mr. Laue’s comments encouraging the councilors to reach consensus on a police facility.
Councilor Solomon thanked everyone for coming. She also wanted to follow up on Mr. Brown’s request.
She said she had asked for a memorandum on the “double standard” of requiring private owners to clean up
homeless camps but the City not cleaning them up on public lands, but she had not seen the memorandum on
the list of councilor requests. She wanted to know the City’s policy on this issue.
Councilor Poling clarified that that the City did not “find” additional money; the money was in the Facilities
Reserve Fund and had been set aside deliberately by the Budget Committee and City Council for ongoing
projects as well as long-time projects. He said the fund had been in existence for a long time. He
underscored that this money was different than bond measure money as the reserve fund was money the City
already had and a bond measure asked the community to spend more money on the City. He also clarified
that the actual cost to retrofit City Hall would be substantially more than $3 million. He added that the
concern the potential of a pancaked facility caused was not about losing officers, it was about the ability to
continue to function as a police department in general. He stressed that vehicles and equipment were stored
under the facility and until the City provided take-home vehicles for officers, the officers and vehicles would
have to go somewhere to start the day. He disputed the notion that it was about politics or trust in the police
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 3
Regular Meeting
department by some of the people in our community, it was about safety for the police department in
general. He thanked everyone for coming and speaking.
Councilor Clark also thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. He related that he accompanied Mr.
Brown on the annual River Cleanup, which was sponsored by REI. He said much debris was left behind on
the river banks by illegal campers. He remarked that in the previous year they had “only found five latrines”
next to the water. He underscored that the community had extensive discussions about water quality issues
and some of the things the City wanted to support as regulatory matters that would affect properties all
across the community. He had brought this up before and wanted to reiterate that the City had a problem
regarding what it was willing to allow next to the river, while the rest of the population was dealing with
other problems that were not effectively addressing the homeless camping along the river. He wanted the
City to address this in the budgeting process. He thought the St. Vincent DePaul program could be
expanded. He wanted more than just a memorandum as he believed this to be a much more dramatic issue
and felt the City could do a better job of protecting its river.
Mayor Piercy recalled that Acting in Capacity (AIC) Facilities Division Manager Mike Penwell, had
indicated that the seismic upgrade would cost $3 million. Ms. Medary clarified that Mr. Penwell had said it
would be difficult to just spend $3 million, though this was the actual line item cost of doing a seismic
retrofit on City Hall. She said the facility would be facing “some big ticket items” in addition to the retrofit.
She noted that the last estimate for the entire costs had been $50 million and the estimate made in 2001 had
been $20 million.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
- November 17, 2008, Work Session
- November 26, 2008, Work Session
- November 26, 2008, Executive Session
- December 10, 2008, Work Session
- January 12, 2009, Work Session
- January 12, 2009, City Council Meeting
- January 13, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting
- January 14, 2009, Executive Session
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of December 3, 2008, and
January 13, 2009
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Con-
sent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanim-
ously, 8:0.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 4
Regular Meeting
3. ACTION:
Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Direction on Legislative
Policy on January 28, and February 4, 2009
Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson explained that four bills had been pulled for review at
the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) held on January 28, and
two bills had been pulled at the meeting held on February 4. She reiterated that current CCIGR operating
agreements required that direction on legislation be unanimous before the City could take a position on a
piece of legislation. She indicated that she would review them one at a time.
Senate Bill 192
Ms. Wilson explained that this was a Governor’s bill introduced to create a historic property partial tax
exemption. She said the exemption would be in place for 15 years with a possibility for renewal. She noted
that City staff members, Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill and Urban Services Manager Richie
Weinman, had recommended a Priority 2 Oppose position because any tax exemption that was enacted took
money out of the General Fund that could be utilized for other projects. She related that Councilor Taylor
wished to change the standing on the bill to Priority 2 Support because she was concerned about the
diminishing numbers of historic properties in the City and in the state. This had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She
noted that the bill had not had a hearing to date.
House Bill 2052
Ms. Wilson explained that this was an interim committee bill from the Human Services and Women’s
Wellness Committee that would require governmental entities that wanted to establish specific facilities to
obtain advice from a subcommittee within the jurisdiction. She said this had arisen from two instances
within the state in which a lockdown residential treatment facility had been sited in cities without notifica-
tion. She related that City Attorney Jerry Lidz had been neutral on the bill; he had thought it could legally
make the siting of these facilities easier. Councilor Taylor had wanted to monitor the bill and this had
resulted in a 2:1 vote. She stated that the bill had a hearing, had been in the House Judiciary Committee,
and was sent without recommendation to the House Committee on Human Services where it would receive
another public hearing.
House Bill 2184
Ms. Wilson said the bill would establish a goal for the beverage container return rate for the State of
Oregon. She related that this had come out of a recommendation from the Bottle Bill Task Force, created by
the Legislature in 2007. She explained that the goal would be for an 80 percent return by 2015 and would
expand the type of beverage containers that would be considered returnable to include distilled liquor, wine,
sports drinks, juice, tea, coffee and any other similar non-carbonated drink. She stated that it would increase
the refund value for containers from 5 cents to 10 cents. She added that it had recommended that an
advisory committee be set up to look at statewide-run redemption centers, to be paid for by the industry.
She said the staff members that had provided input were Solid Waste Management Program Manager Ethan
Nelson and Sustainability Manager Felicity Fahy and they had suggested adopting a Priority 3 Support on
the bill. She reported that Councilor Ortiz had moved to change this to Priority 1 Support and Councilor
Taylor had voted in opposition.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 5
Regular Meeting
House Bill 2385
Ms. Wilson reported that this bill would prohibit smoking in a vehicle while a person aged 16 and under was
also in the vehicle, with a maximum fine of $90 for the first offense, $180 for the second offense, and $360
for any subsequent offense. She said the staff person commenting on the bill was Police Lieutenant Derel
Shulz and he recommended a Priority 3 Neutral. She related that he felt that though this was good policy it
would be difficult to enforce. She stated that Councilor Taylor had moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support for
the bill and her motion died for lack of a second. She noted that the bill had received a hearing but had not
yet received a work session. She also noted that the Oregon Police Association had agreed that the law
would be difficult to enforce, but their position was that as with the seatbelt law there would be a high rate
of people who would follow the law simply because it was the law.
House Bill 2239
Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would fill any loophole that now did not allow for a fine if a person refused a
blood or urine test under the Motorists Implied Consent Law. She said there currently was a fine for
refusing to take a breathalyzer test. She related that Policy Analyst for the Eugene Police Department,
Ellwood Cushman, had reviewed the bill and recommended adopting a Priority 3 Support. Councilor Taylor
had moved to change this to a Priority 3 Oppose and this had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She noted that the bill
had come from the Governor’s Task Force on DUII and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving had testified in
support of it. She said the only opposition to the bill had come from the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers
Association, which had indicated that they took no issue with the refusal of the urine test but they did have
an issue with requiring blood testing. She related that their feeling was that people in the hospital might not
be in the best condition to give that type of consent. She said the Oregon State Police (OSP) had reported
that in the past year there had been 215 blood test refusals and 415 urine test refusals. She added that the
OSP noted that criminal defense lawyers often recommended to clients that they refuse those tests and most
of the people being asked to provide these tests were repeat offenders.
House Bill 2384
Ms. Wilson said this bill would require the Oregon Justice Commission to administer collaboration grants
for local Public Safety Coordinating Councils (PSCCs). She explained that it would require them to
administer the grants to encourage collaboration between local agencies and organizations involved in the
criminal justice system, noting that the grants would not exceed $100,000. She related that to qualify there
would have to be an inter-agency project that would utilize a collaborative approach to solve a problem of
local public safety concerns. She said the bill had been sponsored by Representative Nancy Nathanson.
The staff person providing the recommendation had been Police Chief Pete Kerns and he recommended a
Priority 3 Support. She reported that Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to Priority 3 Oppose and
her motion had died for lack of a second. She noted that there had not been a hearing for the bill yet.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental
Relations Committee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations
in the January 28, and February 4, 2009, Intergovernmental Relations Bill Reports for bills
not pulled for discussion at those meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously,
8:0.
Councilor Poling expressed a preference for addressing the bills one at a time in future council meetings,
rather than having Ms. Wilson highlight them all. He also asked that she explain what the levels of priority
meant.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 6
Regular Meeting
Ms. Wilson briefly outlined the function of the CCIGR. She explained that every bill in the legislature was
assigned to legislative coordinators throughout the City organization who were specialists in their areas.
She said the coordinators read the bills and, based on their professional expertise, made a recommendation
to the CCIGR on what the City’s position could be. She listed the positions the City could take on a bill:
?
Drop – in the case where a bill had no impact whatsoever on the City;
?
Neutral – in the case where no matter whether it was enacted or not it did not impact the City;
?
Monitor – City staff reviewed almost all of the bills that came before the Legislature, nearly 3,000
of them, and the City tracked and had positions on over 700 bills in 2007, monitoring meant keeping
track of a bill while looking for a broad relating clause or amendments that could impact the City;
?
Support or Oppose – this meant the City either supported or opposed the bill, and the City could
indicate that it would support a bill with amendments, and the rating of 1 to 3 gave Ms. Wilson the
instructions for how much work she and her staff would spend on a particular lobbying effort with 1
being the highest level of effort.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi-
tion on Senate Bill 192. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Tay-
lor voting in opposition.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Neutral position on
House Bill 2052.
Councilor Taylor explained that she had sought to monitor the bill because she believed it would help protect
neighborhoods by providing more time before the facilities could be located in them. She averred that
people should be aware of such a facility before it was placed in their neighborhood.
Councilor Ortiz asked Ms. Wilson to speak to who sponsored the bill and what counties it would affect.
Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had arisen from a situation wherein a lockdown facility had been sited in two
communities in the state and the cities had not been notified prior to the placement of the facilities.
Councilor Ortiz asked if the bill would cover all halfway houses. Ms. Wilson replied that the law already
required notification of the siting of halfway houses, work release centers, and facilities for persons released
from correctional facilities and youth care facilities. She said this would add to the list of notification
facilities that held people under lockdown conditions, i.e. they were not allowed to freely come and go from
the facilities.
Councilor Poling understood that this would not diminish a citizen’s ability to respond to the siting of such a
facility, rather it enhanced this ability. He thought it would serve as a more focal point for concerns to be
addressed to any opposition a neighborhood might have about such a siting.
Councilor Clark surmised that the bill would make the siting of a lockdown facility more transparent, as it
would require more interaction and cooperation with neighbors to get this done. Ms. Wilson affirmed this.
She said it would require the State Department of Corrections to fully inform a local PSCC that they wanted
to site such a facility in a particular location.
Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to substitute
adoption of a Priority 3 Support for House Bill 2052. Roll call vote: the motion to amend
passed unanimously, 8:0.
Roll call vote: the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 7
Regular Meeting
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 1 Support posi-
tion on House Bill 2184.
Councilor Taylor explained that while she supported raising the amount of the deposit, the idea of state-run
redemption centers had given her pause. She was worried that this would defeat the purpose by adding an
extra step in the redemption process and therefore increasing the amount of containers that were tossed
aside. She thought it would also increase the vehicle miles traveled. She could not imagine that there would
be more than three redemption centers in the City.
Councilor Zelenka asked who the sponsor was and how this affected the process of redeeming bottles and
cans at grocery stores. Ms. Wilson reiterated that the bill had come out of a recommendation from the
Bottle Bill Task Force, which had been meeting since 2007. She said the bill established a goal for an 80
percent return rate with an advisory committee to report back to the Legislature no later than February 1,
2017, to let them know how well it was working. She explained that part of the discussion from the task
force was that the industry would set up the redemption centers. She acknowledged that at present it was
not known how many centers there would be or how they would be set up. She underscored that if the
redemption centers did not work the Legislature would take another look at the bill.
In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson stated that this bill would not shift
the responsibility for redemption to the centers immediately.
Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Clark, Pryor, Ortiz, and Poling voting in
favor and councilors Taylor, Zelenka, Solomon, and Brown voting in opposition. Mayor
Piercy voted for adoption of a Priority 1 Support position on House Bill 2184 and the mo-
tion passed.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Neutral position on
House Bill 2385. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Taylor vot-
ing in opposition.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support posi-
tion on House Bill 2239.
Councilor Taylor averred that the City should adopt a Priority 3 Oppose stance because she believed it was
an “invasion of civil liberties” to require someone to give blood or urine against their wishes.
Councilor Zelenka related that he once had a good friend killed by a drunk driver and he took the matter
“very seriously.” He felt, however, that blood tests were beyond a normal expectation and were an invasion
of privacy. He indicated he would vote against the motion.
Councilor Ortiz stated that this was not a bill that would require people at random to be subjected to blood
tests. She said this would apply only to a group of people for whom the breathalyzer could not identify
intoxication. She underscored that expert people who were trained to determine whether a person was under
the influence of something would be brought in. She did not disagree that this was an invasion of privacy,
but if a person had been pulled over and the officer could tell that the person was impaired, but could not tell
what kind of inebriant had caused it, a blood or urine test would be the next step.
Councilor Clark understood the value of ensuring that officers had all the tools they needed to make sure
that the roadways were safe from people who were driving under the influence. He felt that the challenge
was that they could not write a law that said a person had to give these things. He averred that instead the
bill had to “back door” the requirement, by saying a person could not get a drivers’ license unless they
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 8
Regular Meeting
waived the right going in. He agreed with Councilor Taylor that this was a violation of civil liberties. He
indicated that if a motion was made to change the stance to Priority 3 Oppose he would likely provide the
second.
Councilor Poling stated that when a person applied for a drivers’ license, a person gave implied consent that
if they were arrested for driving under the influence they would submit to a test. He said what the bill
addressed was that once an officer had probable cause to arrest someone for driving under the influence and
that person took a breath test, but the reading indicated they were below the legal limit, the officer could then
call in a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to conduct an intensive interview of the individual. He stressed
that the DRE had hours of training and then had to do a number of drug recognition analyses with someone
who was already a trained DRE prior to doing drug recognition on their own. He said based on their
training experience, if a person who had been stopped by an officer was exhibiting conditions that made him
or her appear under the influence, and it was obviously not attributable to alcohol, the person was then given
the option to undergo urine analysis. He said the bill also covered the case of incapacity, such as when a
person was in an auto accident and had a facial injury that would prevent administration of the breathalyzer
test. He underscored that the blood or urine test would never be given under random circumstances and that
the officer had to have probable cause.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend the motion to substitute a
Priority 3 Oppose stance.
Councilor Taylor related an instance in which a person who “was fragile” or not feeling well was stopped
and could not pass a sobriety test. She said putting a person in that condition through a blood or urine test
seemed like an invasion.
Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; councilors Taylor, Clark, Brown,
and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Ortiz, Poling, and Solomon voting in op-
position. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and the substitution passed.
Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion, as amended, was a tie, 4:4; councilors Taylor,
Clark, Brown, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Ortiz, Poling, and Solo-
mon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and the stance for House Bill
2239 was changed to Priority 3 Oppose.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support posi-
tion for House Bill 2384.
Councilor Taylor said she had voted against the bill because she believed the PSCC had not fulfilled its
purpose. She opined that it was a “waste of time and a waste of money” for a lot of people.
Mayor Piercy remarked that it was her feeling that it was almost premature to adopt a position on the bill.
She averred that they needed to have a cross-jurisdictional discussion on it.
Councilor Zelenka asked if the bill appropriated the money to require the matching funds for the PSCCs.
Ms. Wilson replied that the bill would provide a fund to give grants to PSCCs not to exceed $100,000 if the
PSCC could demonstrate that it had matching funds. She said the bill did not establish where the matching
funds would come from. She reiterated that the bill would require the state to administer a grant program.
She anticipated that the bill would have a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee to
determine whether or not the program would be funded.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 9
Regular Meeting
Councilor Clark ascertained from Ms. Wilson that the PSCCs had been created through Senate Bill 1145.
He wished they could get rid of the bill because it also made anyone sentenced to less than a year, serve in
the county jail rather than in state prisons, which placed a burden on the County. He said Ms. Wilson had
done the “yeoman’s work” for him to determine that the City could not revocate the bill without paying back
the money the area had received for the PSCC over the years. He understood that the bill would provide
grant monies if the PSCC found ways to collaborate inter-jurisdictionally and to that end he would support
the bill.
Councilor Poling echoed Councilor Clark’s comments. He said in the lean times ahead and in the face of the
crumbling public safety community that existed in Lane County, any money they could get that would help
them work together to “put band-aids on the bleeding system” should be supported.
Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition.
Councilor Zelenka related that at a breakfast meeting with the legislative delegation they had talked about
the firefighter “cancer” bill on which the City had adopted a Neutral position. He wanted Ms. Wilson to
bring this back before the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had come back before the CCIGR
during the February 4 meeting and had changed the position to Support by a unanimous vote.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 10
Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENT C
M I N U T E S
City Council
City Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
February 17, 2009
7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan
Zelenka, George Brown, members.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
I. PUBLIC HEARING:
FY 2010-2015 Draft Capital Improvement Program
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules governing the public hearing. She opened the public hearing.
John Barofsky
, 2010 Hubbard Lane, noted the Budget Committee’s recent review of the capital improvement
program and its recommendation to approve the CIP as presented. While he agreed with the recommendation, he
anticipated some difficult decisions ahead about the City’s capital spending. He recalled that full transfer from the
Marginal Beginning Working Capital to the capital budget did not occur because the fund lacked sufficient money to
make the full transfer. He suggested with that example in mind, the manager assume that there will be no transfer
this year. He said the CIP assumed the money would be available in all five years of the CIP. He did not think that
was wise. Mr. Barofsky suggested the manager include whatever part of the transfer he felt should be budgeted for
capital projects, and use the Marginal Beginning Working Capital for other needs, such as funding reserves. He
asserted that the City was budgeting insufficient money for maintaining City facilities and advocated for more money
in that area. He suggested postponing other capital projects if necessary.
Mary Ann Holser
, 26 Cresta de Ruta, spoke of her love for City Hall. She thought the building a wonderful
example of mid-century architecture that was reflective of Eugene and should be saved. Perhaps the economic crisis
would aid in helping the City decide. She wanted to retrofit it for earthquakes. Speaking to the proposed police
facility, she believed it was possible the police needed to be moved from City Hall and she asked the council to
convince her of the value of that. She thought the City administration and police chief should be housed in the same
place. She asked why General Funds were used on capital projects given budgetary shortfalls.
Zachary Vishanoff
, no address given, agreed with the previous speakers.
There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing.
Mayor Piercy solicited council comments or questions. There were none.
II. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Providing for the Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District, the
River Road Park and Recreation District, the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District, and the San-
ta Clara Water District
MINUTES—City Council February 17, 2009 Page 1
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing.
She solicited comments and questions from the council.
Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Planner Ann Siegenthaler of the Planning Division indicated that the
ordinance before the council was very similar to ordinances the council had seen before the Lane County Local
Government Boundary Commission was abolished. She said that there was little change in how withdrawals from
special districts were processed except the council would see more withdrawals from such districts that used to be
automatic.
Mayor Piercy said she received no e-mails or communications of concern, and determined that Planning Division
staff had received none.
Mr. Clark had received no comments. He determined from Ms. Siegenthaler that the ordinance would not materially
affect the River Road Parks and Recreation District effort to include Santa Clara in its boundaries.
III. PUBLIC HEARING:
th
An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Alley Right-of-Way Located between 10 Avenue and Broad-
way Parallel to Olive and Charnelton Streets for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene
(VR1 09-01)
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Zachary Vishanoff
, no address given, said the notice of the hearing in the newspaper did not include the item and
encouraged the City to do more to let the public know that the hearings were happening. He was concerned that the
council was proposing to take action because he maintained that there was a need for a park across from the library
and downtown planning was broken. He urged the council to explain urban renewal to the public and the fact that
private developers would get the alley and explain that it was in the good of the community to hand it over to private
developers. He also called for an explanation of why action was not taken to develop a park across from the library.
He agreed with Eugene resident Otta Poticha that the Downtown Plan was not a plan but a “parking ticket.” He
termed the plan a “laundry list of characteristics.”
Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She pointed out to Mr. Vishanoff that WG was working on a mixed use
development for the site in question that might include some open space. The council would consider that project on
April 8.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2009
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the hearing. She
solicited questions or comments from the council.
Mr. Brown noted the State per company cap on fees such as the City’s toxics right-to-know fee and determined from
Management Analyst Glen Potter of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department that the City had several
companies that benefited from the cap. About half of the companies in the program enjoyed that benefit. Mr. Brown
asked if any of the companies had commented on the fee increase. Mr. Potter said he received no comments
regarding the fees. He noted that companies who were charged were represented on the Toxics Board.
Mayor Piercy determined that Mr. Poling objected to taking action on the item at this time.
Mr. Zelenka asked if the City would seek legislative action to change the cap imposed by the State legislature. Mr.
MINUTES—City Council February 17, 2009 Page 2
Potter said that the City’s legislative priorities included such a recommendation but the City had no success in
pushing it. He understood from the City’s Intergovernmental Affairs Director that the City was not likely to be
successful this session, either.
Mr. Poling asked why the program cost so much more beyond a simple inflationary increase. Mr. Potter said the
budget for the program had increased only by an inflationary increment of about $2,000, but because of the reduction
in what he termed “billable FTEs” and the State cap, it cost companies more per billable FTE to operate the
program. City Manager Ruiz pointed out the cost was being spread over few units.
Mr. Poling suggested there could come a point where the number of businesses and billable FTEs became so low that
the revenue would not support the program.
City Manager Ruiz reminded the council that any such significant program change would require a charter
amendment.
Ms. Ortiz determined from Mr. Potter there were no General Fund dollars supporting the Toxics Right-to-Know
Program.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz,
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—City Council February 17, 2009 Page 3
ATTACHMENT D
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon
February 23, 2009
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka,
George Poling, George Brown.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Ms. Piercy congratulated the Parks and Open Space division for receiving national recognition of it use of
eco-friendly bike trailers, the Public Works Maintenance division for recognition from the state for its work
to reduce diesel exhaust and Building and Permits Services for beginning Saturday service. She thanked the
Board of County Commissioners and the Human Services Commission for their work to open the Armory as
emergency shelter during severe weather. She attended the opening of the new bike/pedestrian bridge over
Interstate 5 and a ceremony celebrating promotions in the Eugene Police Department (EPD).
Mr. Clark reported on his attendance at a February 10, Chamber of Commerce economic forecast meeting,
which provided much helpful information. He also attended a Police Commission meeting at which policy
recommendations on mental health crisis response and medical marijuana cards were finalized. He thanked
staff for its work on downtown parking issues and congratulated police employees who received promotions.
Ms. Ortiz said the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency budget review would occur next week. She drew
the public’s attention to a memorandum from Dawn Reynolds regarding work with the Police Auditor
Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC), Judge Wayne Allen’s position on the downtown public safety zone
ordinance and Johnny Medlin’s comments on skate park funding, all of which could be found in the online
agenda packet.
Mr. Pryor said he had recently toured affordable housing projects and was pleased at the number of units
dispersed through the community. He reported that a public forum on the police auditor ordinance was held
last week and was well attended. He said the West Eugene Collaborative was completing its final report and
would provide an opportunity to discuss the collaborative process. He attended the Birth to Three and
Active 20/30 Club fund raising events and encouraged people to support social service agencies to the extent
they were able.
Ms. Taylor commented that the Tango Center appealed to a broad range of people, provided inexpensive
entertainment and brought life to the downtown area. She urged the council to do anything it could to save
the center. She said the urban renewal district had funds available and there was also a revolving loan fund.
She wanted to prevent the Tango Center from closing. She noted that Spray Play was coming to Washing-
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 1
Work Session
ton Park and asked if similar facilities would be installed in all parks, including Tugman Park. She pointed
out that the council had voted to explore locations for a police station that were owned by the City and in the
downtown area; the council did not vote to build a police station as reported in the media.
Mr. Poling announced that the Convention and Visitor Association of Lane County (CVALC) was now
Travel Lane County. He thanked the 26 community members who participated in the selection process for a
new police auditor. He said he had attended the opening of the bike/pedestrian bridge and groundbreaking
for the newest EmX route. He congratulated EPD employees who were promoted.
Mr. Brown commended the First Place Family Development Center for its service to the community. He
said he had attended the Asian Celebration, a presentation in honor of Oregon’s Sesquicentennial, the EPD
promotions ceremony, a McKenzie Watershed Council meeting and the police auditor public forum. He
thanked Lane County for making the Armory available as a shelter during severe weather. He hoped it
could be made into a permanent facility for the homeless.
Mr. Zelenka noted that in the 2008 population figures, Eugene ranked second in the state. He said 6,865
potholes had been filled in 2008 and over 1,200 filled so far in 2009; also in 2009 there would be 21
transportation projects throughout the city. He said Project Homeless Connect would be held March 6, at
the Lane County Events Center and thanked the County for converting the Armory into a homeless shelter
during bad winter weather. He said he had attended the bike/pedestrian bridge opening and the EmX
groundbreaking ceremony. He indicated that the EmX project was being constructed almost entirely with
state and federal dollars; only seven percent of the project cost was locally funded. He thanked the
community members who participated on the police auditor interview panel.
Mr. Clark said he attended his first Metropolitan Partnership Board meeting and there was an extensive
discussion of the local economy and strategies to address local economic development. He said the local
legislative delegation had also engaged in community discussions of the state’s budget shortfalls in the
current and next fiscal years.
Ms. Taylor stated that the council had not voted on February 11 to purchase the Eugene Water & Electric
Board property. She was only willing to support a seismic upgrade and rehabilitation of City Hall and felt
the voters should be asked if they were willing to build a police station.
Ms. Piercy clarified that the council’s discussion was not about a police headquarters building; it was about
a patrol facility.
City Manager Jon Ruiz commented that he had recently done a ride-along with a police officer and
encouraged councilors to do the same as it was an educational experience. He would provide additional
information on the budget during the coming week as the impact of the State’s budget crisis on the City
became clearer. He said the Budget Committee would be faced with some very difficult decisions.
B. WORK SESSION:
Surface Transportation Program – Urban (STP-U)
Ms. Piercy referred to an earlier presentation by Lane Transit District (LTD) about its budget problems and
the dilemma of reducing services at a time when ridership was increasing. She said it was essential to make
public transportation available to people in difficult economic times. At a recent meeting of the Metropoli-
tan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting LTD had shared those concerns and a proposal to use STP-U funds to
supplant capital funds in its budget, freeing the capital funds to support bus operations and LTD was asked
to make that presentation to each MPC jurisdiction.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 2
Work Session
Public Works Transportation Planning Manager Rob Inerfeld introduced LTD General Manager Mark
Pangborn and Board President Mike Eyster. He explained that STP-U funds were the primary flexible
funds available to the metropolitan area and they were allocated by the MPC. He said the annual allocation
was $2.5-3 million and in the past the MPC had allocated 10 percent to transportation options, 25 percent to
planning and 65 percent to capital projects. He estimated that $1.6 million would be available for capital
projects in the next fiscal year and it was those funds that LTD was proposing to use for transit. He said
typically the MPC allocated funds on a three-year cycle to provide a larger pool of funds for projects and
this is the end of the three-year cycle. In the past the council’s direction to staff had been to use STP-U
funds for pavement preservation on streets and off-street shared use paths, modernization and bikeway
improvements, with the recent focus on preservation.
Mr. Eyster referred to an updated LTD proposal that had been distributed at the meeting. He said budget
problems had been created by the increasing costs of paratransit for the elderly and disabled, which far
exceeded funding provided by the state, increasing costs of fuel and the decline in the economy. He said the
LTD Board had examined a number of options in an effort to balance the budget and avoid service cuts, but
those were not enough to prevent a reduction in service. He said the initial proposal for STP-U funds had
been revised based on information about transit funding in the federal economic stimulus package. Instead
of requesting STP-U funds immediately, LTD would use economic stimulus funds to prevent service
reductions in the first year and was asking to retain the option to request STP-U funds in subsequent years
to avert service cuts.
Mr. Pangborn said while the outlook had improved somewhat, the budget remained a moving target. He
said stimulus funds would be a major factor in preventing immediate service cuts. He estimated the district
would receive $6.5 million in stimulus dollars that would need to be spent in the next 18 months; half of that
would be set aside for remodeling the maintenance facility and the other half would be used to reduce service
cuts in the first year. He thought the federal transportation reauthorization bill would include STP-U or a
very similar program and it was those funds for which LTD wanted to retain an option.
Mr. Clark requested details of capital projects that would be postponed in order to shift funds to bus
operations. Mr. Pangborn said real-time reader boards on EmX platforms and upgrades fare collection
equipment on buses would be deferred.
Mr. Clark asked if the Governor’s transportation bill included operational funds for transit. Mr. Pangborn
replied that potential increases in funding for transit included an increase in the tobacco tax, acceleration of
the payroll tax rate increase and an increase in the amount of the payroll tax. Mr. Eyster added that the
LTD Board would determine how much of the payroll tax increase to implement locally.
Mr. Clark expressed concerns about trading City capital preservation project dollars for transit operational
funds. He said it appeared the district had sweeping capital goals for expansion of the system at a time
when there were operational challenges.
Mr. Eyster explained that LTD’s capital projects included few local funds as the district leveraged state and
federal funds to the maximum extent to the benefit of the region. He was willing to provide more details
about how capital projects and transit operations were funded. Mr. Pangborn added that the district’s
th
largest capital project—the West 11 EmX extension—had no local funds; it was supported only by state
and federal funds.
In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pangborn explained that half of the stimulus funds had to be
spent to create jobs within 180 days of their receipt, which was why they could not all be used for
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 3
Work Session
operations. The district’s pressing need to expand its maintenance facility to accommodate the larger transit
vehicles was a good fit for that requirement. He hoped that with the other half of the stimulus funds, service
reductions could be prevented for a year.
Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of buses to people who needed to get to work. She encouraged late
night bus service to reduce the incidence of drunk driving.
Mr. Zelenka asked if LTD was requesting to have $1.5 million in STP-U funds held in reserve for the next
three fiscal years. He also asked for clarification on how the STP-U funds were currently being used. Mr.
Inerfeld replied that transportation options funds were used to support Commuter Solutions work on
transportation demand management, planning funds went to Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to
provide staff support for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and to jurisdictions to support their
involvement in MPO activities. He said the City received $40,000 and LCOG received around $400,000
per year.
Mr. Zelenka asked about the impact of holding funds in reserve. Mr. Inerfeld said his understanding was
that LTD was not asking for funds to be held in reserve; the proposal was to let the normal process for
allocating STP-U funds go forward this year and in future years allow LTD to return with a request for
STP-U funds if it was still necessary to avoid service reductions.
Mr. Eyster said LTD had applied for STP-U funds in the past and under the proposal would agree that if
those funds had to be allocated to the district, it would forego applying for STP-U funds for some time in the
future.
Mr. Zelenka noted that STP-U funds represented one of the few sources of flexible federal dollars and he
was supportive of trading capital funds for City street improvements for maintaining bus service levels.
Mr. Pryor asked if the proposal could include an agreement that if LTD did not need STP-U funds in a
particular fiscal year it would release the reserved funds for that year instead of holding the whole amount in
reserve for the entire period. Mr. Eyster said the financial picture was constantly changing and LTD would
not request the funds if they were not needed.
Mr. Ruiz clarified that LTD was not asking the council or MPC to take any action at this point, but there
could be a time in future when there would be a request for funding. He said staff would be mindful of that
possibility as it worked through the budgeting process. Mr. Inerfeld added that the council approved STP-U
applications submitted by the City, but did not take a position on STP-U applications from other jurisdic-
tions although guidance could be provided to the council’s MPC representatives.
Ms. Piercy underscored how difficult it was for the public to understand the restrictions on use of funds.
Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Piercy and said his experience as an MPC member had demonstrated to him
how little discretionary money was available. He asked if STP-U funds could be used to help fill the
operations and maintenance budget gap in Public Works. Mr. Inerfeld replied that STP-U funds could not
be used directly for annual operations and maintenance, but could be used for capital preservation.
Mr. Pangborn said that was why LTD would use STP-U funds for capital projects and use the supplanted
capital funds for transit operations.
C. WORK SESSION
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 4
Work Session
Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir gave a brief overview of the Eugene Comprehen-
sive Lands Assessment (ECLA) project. She introduced Jason Dedrick, Planning Division, to present the
project update. She said staff would give periodic updates over the next year to assure the project remained
consistent with council policy and direction.
Mr. Dedrick used a PowerPoint presentation to provide project background information, explain the study
methodology and describe community engagement activities and next steps. He said House Bill 3337 was
the impetus for ECLA and the assessment of residential land sufficiency had to be completed by December
31, 2009. At the council’s direction, commercial, industrial and public/semi-public land was added to the
study. He said the goal of the assessment was to determine if Eugene had a land supply sufficient to meet
the needs of the 2030 population. He reviewed the assessment methodology and engagement of the
community through formation of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Agency Technical Advisory
(TAC) Committee. Next steps in the project would include community group meetings, scenario develop-
ment and public workshops.
Mr. Clark asked how Eugene’s lands assessment was tracking with the timeline of Springfield’s land
assessment and if there were any savings being realized by working collaboratively. Mr. Dedrick said
Springfield was slightly ahead in the process and Eugene had been able to learn from their experiences; there
was also cross-membership on each community’s committees and sharing of regional information.
Regarding population figures, Mr. Clark said there were initial population numbers from LCOG, then the
City used the safe harbor approach and recently Portland State University (PSU) had developed some
numbers. He asked if population figures were likely to be challenged and, if so, how that would affect the
project timeline. Mr. Dedrick said that while a challenge is always a possibility, a key factor in the project
was Eugene’s lack of an adopted population number for the year 2030, which was the reason for initiating
the safe harbor process. He said the safe harbor process allowed the City to establish a population number
in lieu of County adoption of a number for 2030. He said the ECLA project was under a strict deadline,
which made it difficult to wait for the County to adopt a population number; therefore, the safe harbor
number was being used in the project.
Mr. Clark asked if the City would need to recalculate if the County adopted a population number in the near
future. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that the statutes specifically stated that if the City had adopted a
safe harbor number it could rely on that figure. She said if it appeared the County would have an adopted
number in time for it to be used in the project, there might be no need for the City to adopt a safe harbor
number.
Mr. Clark asked if the legislature would clarify its intent regarding demonstration under HB 3337. Ms.
Jerome said the legislature had not commented on its intent nor had any bills been submitted that dealt with
determination as opposed to demonstration.
Regarding constrained land, Mr. Clark asked if statutes defined what “constrained” meant as it affected the
20-year land supply. Mr. Dedrick said some constraints were specifically identified and there were
provisions for partially constrained lands; for example, a portion of a lot might be constrained by Goal 5
while the rest was not, compared to a lot that was fully constrained.
Mr. Clark asked for a legal opinion on whether there was considered to be access to partially constrained
land. Ms. Jerome said there were specific constraints that had to be considered, but the process was very
dependent on the situation of an individual jurisdiction. She said it was clear there were assumptions made
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 5
Work Session
by jurisdictions and the contractor hired to work on the project was the premier contractor in the State and
would be a valuable resource to the City.
In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Dedrick said the project would use a safe harbor number
instead of the figure from PSU. Ms. Jerome said that the City would need to consider PSU’s certified
population figures for the area when establishing its safe harbor number; PSU’s work for the County is
different.
Ms. Piercy asked if Springfield’s stakeholder groups and public involvement process were the same as
Eugene’s. Mr. Dedrick said the process was the same, although the committee structure was slightly
different.
Mr. Zelenka asked how TAC and CAC members were selected. He also asked which contractors were
involved in the project. Mr. Dedrick replied that lists of potential members were developed by staff based on
those stakeholders, interests and expertise that should be involved in the process. Entities were then
approached and asked to designate a representative to participate. Three at-large positions on the CAC were
open to the community through an application and selection process. He said contractors were ECONorth-
west, LCOG, the Ulum Group and other expert consultants that were used on an on-call basis to address
specific issues.
Mr. Zelenka said he was looking for an emphasis on density and redevelopment and reuse of land within the
urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Dedrick said the assessment was going beyond statutory requirements,
such as defining housing types as that would be critical to redevelopment.
Ms. Piercy remarked that asking neighborhoods to absorb a certain amount of density was not working; it
was necessary to consult with neighborhoods to determine the type and location of density that was
appropriate. She said the West Eugene Collaborative was having robust discussions of density and
redevelopment.
Ms. Taylor asked who chose the at-large members of the CAC. Mr. Dedrick said they were chosen by staff.
Ms. Taylor said there used to be a Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) that made those decisions and she
wished it was still in existence. She asked how much was being spent on consultants. Ms. Muir explained
that when the CIC was eliminated, the Planning Commission took on that function and had advised staff on
the entire community engagement component of the process. Mr. Dedrick said $280,000 of the project
budget was for consultant services and the City had received a $100,000 grant from the state to offset those
costs.
Mr. Pryor was pleased the project was underway and the issues were very important. He did not have a pre-
ordained outcome in mind or a bias about the project results. He said the council had to have a policy level
discussion about density and its relationship to the land supply and the information generated by the project
would guide those discussions. He said there was pressure to stay within the UGB and build as densely and
efficiently as possible, and pressure to preserve the character of neighborhoods and not build in an overly
dense way; the council would need to reconcile those competing demands.
Ms. Ortiz felt there were some components missing in community representation. She said that the decisions
being made would affect under-represented communities in some areas of the City and hoped that would be
taken into consideration during the public outreach process. Mr. Dedrick said once the assessment was
completed there could be a more robust involvement of a wider cross-section of the community in the
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 6
Work Session
process of analyzing what the results meant to the community; the current phase of the project had a more
technical aspect.
Mr. Clark asked if the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting projects were still targeted for
completion by the end of 2009. Ms. Muir said that was still the goal and the neighborhood empowerment
initiative that was underway was also timely.
Mr. Clark looked forward to conversations about a 20-year vision for the community once all of the
information was available.
Mr. Zelenka said the conversation would be interesting and the decisions difficult. His best outcome was for
the community to create consensus around those issues, but the council would need to have a discussion of
tradeoffs, density and neighborhood livability. He challenged staff to create a framework for those
conversations.
Ms. Piercy cautioned that decisions should not be based on the need to do something; they should be based
on the best vision for the community if it was necessary to accommodate more density.
The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 7
Work Session
ATTACHMENT E
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Executive Session
McNutt Room – City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
February 25, 2008
12:00 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Poling,
Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown.
Mayor Kitty Piercy pursuant to ORS 192.6602(2)(a), called an executive session of the Eugene City
Council to consider the employment of a public officer, employee or staff member to order at 12:00 p.m.
Ms. Piercy adjourned the executive session at 1:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Wade Hicks)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2009 Page 1
Executive Session
ATTACHMENT F
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Executive Session
Council Chamber – City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
March 2, 2009
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Brown.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy presiding.
A. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Police Auditor Recruitment Process [Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a)
The Eugene City Council met in Executive Session to consider the employment of a public officer,
employee, or staff member. The Executive Session was held pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a).
The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 2, 2009 Page 1
Executive Session
ATTACHMENT G
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Regular Session
Council Chamber – City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
March 2, 2009
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Brown.
A. REGULAR SESSION:
Police Auditor Recruitment Process
Mayor Piercy convened the meeting at 6:41 p.m.
Mayor Piercy stated that the primary finalist for the position of independent Police Auditor was unable to
accept it. She said the council had decided to reopen the search to include a broader pool of applicants. She
underscored the council’s appreciation for the services of the interim auditor and that the council planned to
continue to rely on the auditor’s services while the council finished the recruitment process.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reopen the recruitment process
and change the minimum qualifications to indicate that a Juris Doctorate degree would be
preferred but would not be required. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Ze-
lenka and Taylor voting in opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Ruiz
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 2, 2009 Page 1
Executive Session
ATTACHMENT H
MINUTES OF THE
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL,
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, AND
LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009
A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County was held
in the Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday,
March 3, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. with Lane County Commissioner Chair Sorenson presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Leiken welcomed the elected officials to Springfield City Hall for today’s meeting. Members of
the meeting introduced themselves.
Board Chair Sorenson said the Lane County Board of Commissioners was resuming their meeting from
earlier in the day. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Pete Sorenson and Commissioners Bill
Fleenor, Faye Stewart, Bill Dwyer, and Rob Handy. He asked Mayors Leiken and Piercy to open their
meeting.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty
Piercy and Councilors George Brown, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, Mike Clark, and Chris
Pryor. Councilors Ortiz and Solomon were absent.
Mayor Leiken opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Present from Springfield were Mayor
Sid Leiken and Councilors Christine Lundberg, Terri Leezer, Dave Ralston, John Woodrow, and Joe
Pishioneri. Councilor Wylie was absent.
Board Chair Sorenson referred to the agenda which included two topics for today’s discussion: Metro
Plan Overview and Economic Development Response Team. He asked staff for their estimated time on
the presentations.
I. Metro Plan Overview.
Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, said about 12 minutes for staff presentation, then time for
questions.
Mr. Howe presented a power point presentation. He noted that during the last JEO meeting, they
discussed the following five Lane County issues: 1) Annexation Policies; 2) Metro Plan Description of
Urban Services; 3) perceived Citizen Disenfranchisement; 4) Jurisdictional Autonomy/Metro Plan
Boundary Adjustment; and 5) Dispute Resolution Policies. Direction was given for a subcommittee to
meet and report back today, but the subcommittee was not able to meet during that time, so staff would be
presenting an overview of the Metro Plan, following up with the subcommittee’s work later in the month.
Today’s JEO presentation would include background, Metro Plan, emerging issues and conclusions.
Mr. Howe discussed Oregon Senate Bill 100 which was passed in 1973 which required jurisdictions to
adopt comprehensive plans which established the concept of urban growth boundaries. Statewide
planning laws required comprehensive land use plans, locally coordinated and consistent with state goals.
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 2 of 11
There were five metro areas in the State of Oregon: 1) Eugene/Springfield Metro Area; 2) Portland Metro
Area; 3) Salem; 4) Bend; and 5) Medford. Lane County had the rural comprehensive plan which applied
outside the metro plan boundary and outside the urban growth boundaries of the other 10 small cities in
the County. The jurisdiction of Lane County was all the lands outside of city limits and the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan outside the urban growth boundary and Metro Plan boundary.
Mr. Howe said there had been formal planning efforts in this area since 1945, with the formation of the
Central Lane Planning Commission. In 1959, the Central Lane Planning Commission developed the first
development plan for Eugene and Springfield. The 1972 to 1990 plan was adopted. In 1973, Senate Bill
100 passed requiring the Comprehensive Plan and in 1982 the Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan was
adopted, followed shortly after with the County’s adoption of their rural plan. The Metro Plan had gone
through a couple of periodic reviews since then. In 2007, HB3337 required separation of the urban growth
boundary (UGB).
Mr. Howe said citizens inside city limits were represented by their respective City Council. Citizens in the
area within the Metro Plan UGB were represented by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Land
available inside the UGB’s had been available for development to try to prevent development outside the
UGB. At this time a single UGB existed, but with HB3337, each city would have its own UGB and
separate inventories.
Springfield Planning Manager, Greg Mott, said the underlying premise for everything in the Metro Plan
came from the fundamental principles in Chapter 1 of the Metro Plan. He summarized those principles.
Even though the Metro Plan was designed to provide a twenty-year time horizon for growth and
development change to occur, it also needed to remain a timely document. The State required an update
every once in awhile. Each community could also develop refinement plans for neighborhood planning.
The Plan diagram was a graphic representation of the goals and objectives of the Plan. The policies in the
Plan, in Chapter 3, were the things used to make decisions regarding development. Although it seemed
that some of the policies in the Metro Plan conflicted with each other, that was part of the balancing act
that was inherent to the comprehensive planning process.
Mr. Mott said the current Metro Plan was in its third iteration and it was now on the verge of a fourth
amendment. He explained the effect of HB3337 and that each City would have their own UGB. Each city
would be responsible for all actions that occurred inside each UGB, such as land inventory and provision
of services, as well as preparing a Local Transportation Plan in order for the land use inventories to be
developed. Another affect was the abolishment of the Lane County Boundary Commission, who had been
the authority for annexation for the two cities. Now each city was responsible for their annexation
procedures. Something else that tied in with this was the Little Look process that was done at the State
level. He further discussed how each city would be obligated to comply with State land use laws within
our UGBs, and relying on Metro Plan policies to establish that they were consistent with State goals.
Where there was a conflict, the Metro Plan needed to be amended. Currently, the Metro Plan didn’t
included two separate boundaries.
Mr. Mott discussed service provision in relation to public safety and libraries. The Metro Plan as it was
now hindered standing services through service districts, as it relied on the cities as the service providers.
There was no law that prohibited that, but had been left in the Plan. Another element from HB3337 was
that each city needed to have their own population forecast to comply with the law and that we determine
we have a twenty-year inventory of land. He pointed out that we did not currently have rural reserves in
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 3 of 11
this county. Urban reserves, located outside the UGB, were a requirement in the law that could apply
here, but only if certain standards were met. The designation of urban reserves would be the first area
considered if expanding the UGB. Each city had developed an independent Transportation System Plan
(TSP) that would support the land use planning currently underway in HB3337. Also, the cities, in
partnership with Lane County, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the City of Coburg, were
developing a Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP) that would take the place of the current
TransPlan.
Lisa Gardner, Planning Division Manager from the City of Eugene, said some of the issues outlined by
Mr. Mott related to the Metro Plan from a land use perspective, while others may have connections to the
Metro Plan, but were much broader relational issues. She discussed some of those regional relationship
issues.
Ms. Gardner said some of the issues included how services were provided in Lane County, both urban
and rural; how services were defined; and how services were delivered and paid for. Urban services
defined by the Metro Plan were key services, such as water, sewer, fire and schools. There were also key
urban services in the Metro Plan for land use decisions on how and where we would grow. The County
also provided several services, such as animal control, sheriff, prosecution and many others. These
services were used by both city and county residents. The question before the JEO members, was how to
continue to fund and deliver these services countywide, both urban and rural.
Ms. Gardner referred to many regional partnerships that were not tied to the Metro Plan, but were
important in terms of quality of life. These included regional decision-making and dispute resolution
through the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Jurisdictional autonomy was another issue the
elected officials had expressed interest in discussing further. She discussed the jurisdictional boundaries.
Ms. Gardner said the planning framework in the Metro Plan identified many of the relationships between
jurisdictions. Regardless of the form the Metro Plan took, the relationships still existed, some in the Metro
Plan and some in other plans. There would always be both formal and informal relationships. There
would always be decisions made that would affect one another. If they continued to look at how to
efficiently provide services, those would be formally and informally codified through special districts, the
Metro Plan, transportation plans, etc.
Ms. Gardner said in conclusion, the issues emerging were broader ranging issues. As the group started
addressing some of the issues, it was important to identify problem areas and identify a broad range of
solution sets or options. Some of the issues would find resolution within processes already in place, such
as HB3337, while others may need new processes. Staff would provide the information the elected
officials needed to proceed.
Board Chair Sorenson said staff had provided an excellent overview of the situation. He suggested going
around the table for comments or questions.
Commissioner Stewart said he had no questions at this time.
Commissioner Fleenor referred to Ms. Gardner’s presentation regarding identifying a broad set of
solutions. They needed to ask why they were doing this, and what was the purpose. He would like to look
at whether or not we had a system that worked and addressed the constituents’ needs. More or less it was,
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 4 of 11
but the bigger question was whether or not the jurisdictions were taking care of the individual constituents
in the different metropolitan areas. There were many philosophies that caused a lot of friction and friction
caused distrust. He was more interested in what they were trying to accomplish as a group of three public
bodies, who they represented and what their needs were. He believed in jurisdictional autonomy, but
questioned whether or not the Metro Plan offered that flexibility. He asked if the Metro Plan gave the
ability to adapt and if it was agile. Most of the answers were ‘probably not as good as it could be’.
Possibilities included fixing the Metro Plan or preparing two separate Comprehensive Plans. As policy
makers they needed to look at the big picture and determine what they wanted to accomplish as efficiently
and effectively as possible. He would prefer two separate plans that allowed flexibility.
Councilor Clark said he liked the way they were considering tackling one problem at a time. As times
changed, priorities also changed. He appreciated Commissioner Stewart’s letter in the paper today. There
were a lot of issues around the Metro Plan regarding provision of services and a lot the group could talk
about, but he felt discussion on regional coordination on public safety should be a priority. He supported
working together to address that issue.
Councilor Ralston asked about the results of the Little Look.
Ms. Gardner said that was a compilation put together by Betsy Shepherd, the consultant the jurisdictions
worked with a couple of years ago.
Councilor Ralston said he agreed with the following statements from the agenda packet:
?
The Metro Plan should be reviewed collaboratively as parts of it seemed outdated or too
restrictive.
?
The Metro Plan is less relevant today and could warrant further collaborative review.
?
The Metro Plan could better meet the current and future needs in the areas of housing, buildable
lands and UGB’s.
He felt that the Metro Plan either needed to be changed to make it more agile, or they needed to look at
two separate Comp Plans.
Commissioner Handy referred to staff discussion regarding HB3337 and the options to either amend the
Metro Plan or amend our actions. He asked for further explanation.
Mr. Mott said currently the Metro Plan had a single UGB and there were a number of references to that in
the Metro Plan. The assumptions about the inventories for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County were
based on areas within the single UGB. There would now be two distinct UGBs, so that information in the
Metro Plan would need to be changed. Each City would be making changes that would substitute that
information. When he said they would be using the Metro Plan policies to guide our compliance with the
Statewide goals, he meant they would be working succinctly on inventories and would be subject to the
rules and goals for those inventories. The development of that would be based on policies that were in the
Metro Plan unless instructed to adopt different policies. There were decision points along the way for
elected officials, about how that work would unfold and how it would affect the Metro Plan. We were
under no obligation to maintain to the current structure if the elected officials chose another structure.
Regarding HB3337, there would be a package with recommendations of changes in the Metro Plan for the
new reality in Springfield regarding inventories.
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 5 of 11
Commissioner Handy discussed the economic opportunity analysis Springfield was undergoing and how
it related to nodal development.
Mr. Mott said the analysis regarding commercial and industrial inventories assigned a certain level of
employment opportunities to nodal development sites. The number of sites the City currently had
achieved some satisfaction of that demand. Other sites could be designated to accommodate. He
explained some of the factors that could affect nodal sites, such as transportation. The residential lands
study also attributed a certain development with minimum flow.
Councilor Pishioneri said the presentation made a lot of sense. The Metro partnership was important and
he didn’t want to lose sight of that. The key was to get through the five issues and get rid of some of the
clumsiness of the Metro Plan by way of refinement plans. That allowed each city entity to retain some
control while still meeting the needs of the whole. He felt they could eliminate the current issues through
refinements plans.
Commissioner Dwyer said three or four years ago, the County Commissioners sent a letter to the cities
with fifteen important questions and did not get a response. They were now dealing with those issues.
They talked about the preservation of farmland, but the Metro Plan had saved no farmland. In order to
preserve farmland, they needed to get rid of the phrase ‘developed and committed’ from the Metro Plan to
allow the City the latitude to allow a producing farm to exist in an urban setting. He felt the Department
of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) did not support that concept. The cities didn’t want to
amend the Metro Plan so the cities would collect the park SDC’s inside the UGB, but they wanted control
over building and development in those areas. They needed to walk the walk and have a plan of what the
problems were. The cities needed to work with the County to meet their needs and not just the needs of
each city. He discussed the concept of charging the citizens for highest and best use and how that didn’t
encourage use other than development. He felt the system was broken. He would prefer to identify two to
three things over the next 6 months, then two or three more, and put some time constraints to address
those issues. He wanted to identify how farmland could be preserved. He felt Eugene was the biggest user
of farmland in the Willamette Valley and would like to find ways to preserve that land. He was unhappy
with the process.
Councilor Taylor said the system was broken and they needed to rebuild farmland. She thought the most
important thing they could do was save farmland and put rural reserves into place. They would need food
close to the people. She didn’t understand increasing the UGB because they would eventually all meet up
with each other leaving nothing in between. She recommended two books, Geography of Nowhere and
World Made by Hand.
Board Chair Sorenson asked about the relationship between the Metro Plan and new legislation that had
been introduced to create an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT), which the State may require.
Mr. Mott asked Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt to respond.
Mr. Boyatt said there was no legal relationship. There was not a requirement in the law for ACTs to be
created, but it was something the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had been promoting. It
was another way to coordinate transportation decision making at the programming and project level.
There might be some policy overlap.
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 6 of 11
Board Chair Sorenson asked Mr. Boyatt to send an email to the elected officials regarding the status of
any legislation dealing with ACT.
Mr. Grimaldi said the City may not be in the best position to do that as it was unclear where the bill
started.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin said there was something in legislative counsel, but it had
not been introduced. He said he would send out an email regarding that issue.
Board Chair Sorenson asked about the relationship between the Metro Plan and the economic
development function of the cities, Chambers of Commerce, Lane Metro Partnership, Lane Community
College, and Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He asked if there was an economic development
function in the Metro Plan.
Mr. Mott said Chapter 3 of the Metro Plan included an economic element, which was a requirement of
Goal 9. There had been changes to Goal 9 with respect to communities having an economic opportunities
analysis and economic strategies incorporated in their Comp Plan, and the relationship between the land
that was needed for employment opportunities and attributes of that land. The analysis of the opportunity
the community had to bring jobs would develop economic strategies and land use applications,
development standards, financial policies etc. The existing elements in the Metro Plan were fine when it
was written, but things had changed. They hadn’t consulted the Metro Plan regarding the economic
element in a number of years.
Board Chair Sorenson said since the Metro Plan was written, new things such as sustainability had come
to the forefront when considering economic activity and making decisions. He asked if they could change
the name from economic development to sustainable development in the Metro Plan, incorporating some
of the concepts of sustainability. He asked if that could be done under current land use codes.
Mr. Mott said the elected officials in this community had a lot of latitude on how to address the economic
development interest, as long as they were consistent with Goal 9. It could be renamed whatever they
chose and they could have policies in the individual jurisdictions that didn’t need to be in a
Comprehensive Plan. At a higher level, if it was an either/or scenario, it could be more problematic. Staff
was available to tell the elected officials what the law allowed them to do.
Board Chair Sorenson said the elected officials could possibly make such a change if all agreed. He asked
about the timeline leading up to the separation of the UGB’s.
Ms. Gardner said Springfield was about a year ahead of Eugene in terms of amendments for the UGB
change. Springfield would establish its own UGB, but until Eugene took action, their UGB would remain
as it was today. They would work through those issues with DLCD. Springfield would have its own UGB
prior to Eugene establishing their own.
Board Chair Sorenson asked when the Lane County Board of Commissioners would see a proposal from
Eugene or Springfield to make a change and take action.
Mr. Mott said the target date was the end of the 2009 calendar year.
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 7 of 11
Board Chair Sorenson asked if there was any controversy on where the new line would be going.
Mr. Mott said he didn’t believe there was any controversy, but before committing to that, they needed to
get emergency services on board.
Board Chair Sorenson discussed public safety and said Springfield was involved in their jail project,
Eugene was not and Lane County was facing difficulties in this area. He asked what the role was in the
Metro Plan regarding public safety planning and how that was coordinated.
Mr. Howe said the Metro Plan spoke only to police services. That was one of the definitional questions
staff would like to explore with the JEO subcommittee.
Board Chair Sorenson clarified the Metro Plan referred to police protection, not public safety, which
encompassed corrections and other public safety issues. He said that showed the terminology issues over
the last twenty to thirty years for many of the topics in the Metro Plan. He discussed some of the many
areas that were included in public safety. He wanted to know the role the County had with the cities
regarding siting public safety services.
Ms. Gardner said the Metro Plan identified services for the purposes of planning and extending the urban
services into the planned area. There were other things that had relationship to the Metro Plan, but were
not the land use relationships. There were things that needed to be discussed, but not all were in the Metro
Plan and changing the Plan may not address those issues.
Board Chair Sorenson asked about reserving farmland. It had been mentioned that the Metro Plan
facilitated growth of cites out on to the farmland. He asked what staff would recommend if the elected
officials wanted to pursue a more aggressive plan to protect farmland and what type of guidance they
could give regarding how to structure that discussion.
Ms. Gardner said communities around the state were struggling with trying to preserve land yet meeting
state requirements for adequate buildable land. The policy makers could look at the issues and participate
in the statewide dialogue regarding that issue. Some of the definitions for density were statutorily defined.
Mayor Piercy said they all had strong feelings about their jurisdictions, but also shared a lot of things that
were done together. She didn’t hear anyone saying they wanted to get rid of the Metro Plan, but rather fix
it. They needed to identify which questions needed to be addressed to begin that process, such as what
could be changed to protect farmland. She saw the separation of the UGB as an amicable divorce and
there would be some work to do. Some of the issues regarding public safety didn’t fit in this discussion,
but needed to be held. She suggested looking at what needed to be fixed in the Metro Plan to address the
issues such as farmland. One of the questions at hand was whether or not they agreed with the policies
that governed the Metro Plan and if not, which ones they did not agree with and which ones they could
add. She understood that some wanted to look at this more carefully individually.
Mayor Leiken asked staff to explain the difference between the Salem/Keizer metro area and the
Eugene/Springfield metro area.
Mr. Mott said Salem/Keizer had separate UGBs, but were guided by the same policies regarding
development so densities remained the same. There was a single transportation system for both
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 8 of 11
communities and one transit provider. Their Council’s acted independently with their individual Comp
Plans. They also had more than one county involved.
Mayor Leiken clarified that the Bend metro area only included Bend and the Medford metro area only
included Medford. He discussed his disappointment with the Big Look that was recently concluded. He
was concerned the Metro Plan would be diluted. With the implementation of HB3337, the major
components of the Metro Plan would be taken out, and now each jurisdiction was putting forth separate
Transportation Plans. He asked if the Metro Plan would be in name only in order to save money on
developing separate Comp Plans. That was fine if it was needed to save funds, avoid legal costs and be
supported by DLCD. He felt they would end up developing separate Comp Plans with the title of Metro
Plan. He did not want to dilute this and develop a Metro Council. He was totally opposed to that. Those
were issues to consider. There would be separate autonomy between the two cities. Future elected official,
could decide to move toward developing separate Comp Plans.
Councilor Lundberg said she totally agreed with Mayor Leiken and was fine with having a discussion
whether or not the Metro Plan was a viable document. There was now a method to deal with Fire and Life
Safety, water and sewer and other metro services. Once they had separate plans and separate UGBs, there
wasn’t much left. There would still be times when they would want to collaborate and cooperate when
appropriate, but she wanted to know what the jurisdictions wanted to do with the Metro Plan. Some of the
issues such as farmland and sustainability may not all lead to the Metro Plan. Autonomy was very
important.
Councilor Zelenka said the next meeting needed to be more specific, with a conversation about the
threshold of questions the Mayors mentioned. They needed to talk about specific fixes within this
conversation. He asked staff to work on focusing the issues by calling their elected officials. He noted that
he had grown up in the Bay Area where there was no planning, and felt that planning had served our area
well and prevented a lot of bad things from happening. He was concerned this would go to an anti-
planning conversation. He would like staff to work on focusing this conversation for the next meeting.
Councilor Pryor said he could live with whatever was decided. The outcomes created less friction than
the process. They needed to come up with a clear outcome, a way to get there and how they would govern
how we got there. They needed to work hard to reestablish trust and accountability. He wanted
respectable interactions along the way.
II. Economic Development Response Team.
Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz said the planning for this item came out of a meeting with the Mayors and
Commissioner Fleenor regarding economic development and job creation. They thought there could be
value in creating a JEO subcommittee to have a coordinated effort around this topic, recognizing each
jurisdiction would pursue some independent job creation and economic development, but that there was
also value in coordination around this issue. The subcommittee could be represented by elected officials
and coordinated through Springfield/Eugene/Lane County (SEL). They could help to form an economic
development summit and could be used to help form some of the coordinated responses for stimulus
packages. That coordination was already happening at the staff level. It could also help plan for some
regional coordination around specific economic development tools and what they wanted the region to
look like in the next economy. They were not asking to solve all of those issues today, but to get support
from each jurisdiction to assign elected officials to work with staff to coordinate those efforts.
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 9 of 11
Board Chair Sorenson asked what staff was asking of the elected officials.
Mr. Ruiz said they were being asked to appoint a couple of elected officials from each jurisdiction to be
part of this subcommittee.
Mayor Piercy said she was very supportive and they had three councilors who were interested.
Mayor Leiken said they had not identified elected officials yet to serve on this, but he was interested in
pursuing. After discussion with the Council, they would identify two members to participate.
Commissioner Stewart said it was a good suggestion, especially in the current economic times. They did
need to be ready for any stimulus funding.
Commissioner Fleenor said he brought this before the Board a couple of weeks ago and received support.
He had volunteered to be part of this subcommittee, along with Commissioner Stewart. He was prepared
to move forward. They would like to try to answer some of the bigger questions and get the policy makers
engaged.
Councilor Clark said he was interested in participating.
Councilor Poling said this was far reaching outside of Eugene and Springfield. Any discussions needed to
address or involve leaders from the other communities in Lane County. He discussed the closure of the
motor home factories and the effect it had on the whole region. He also suggested inviting real business
leaders that had run successful businesses for years to the summit.
Councilor Ralston asked what this subcommittee would be doing that would be different than Lane Metro
Partnership or the Chambers.
Mr. Ruiz said the Chamber had more focused interest in supporting local businesses. The elected officials
represented the political leadership for the jurisdictions. Having them lead the charge was important. He
didn’t know if Lane Metro Partnership could change quickly enough to the changing landscape.
Councilor Zelenka said he liked the concept and thought an economic summit was a good idea. The Lane
Workforce Partnership had agreed to facilitate this summit and he felt they should be drawn in to help.
The smaller cities didn’t have staff available to participate, so this would most likely be metro driven.
Councilor Pryor said he supported Mr. Zelenka’s comments and bringing in people that had knowledge
and experience. The region’s workforce was what brought businesses to our area, so it made sense to
include the Lane Metro Workforce.
Commissioner Handy said the idea of being ready to go in the next 12-18 months as the economy
changed was important. He appreciated the last four comments and questions. He would like the Board to
have a more focused discussion on this topic. The County was also going through some changes and was
trying to focus the energy of their efforts and make sure they were clear where they were targeting their
efforts. They had been told recently that there may be 13-14 economic development functionalities of the
County.
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 10 of 11
Councilor Pishioneri said he thought this was a good way to go. Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)
could also be called in as an outside agency.
Commissioner Dwyer said this was a great idea great regarding reviewing opportunities. He didn’t want
to duplicate the services of the Chamber and the Lane Workforce. It was best to coordinate and take
advantage of the federal stimulus. He thought it would be a good idea to have a sunset date. Springfield’s
Community Service Manager John Tamulonis knew more about economic development than most of
them would ever know, as well as Jack Roberts and others.
Board Chair Sorenson said Eugene knew who they were going to appoint, Springfield was going to
appoint someone after discussion, and Lane County was supportive. He would like to see a rough draft of
what this group would be discussing to help identify which commissioners to appoint.
Mayor Piercy said the longer spent talking about this, the less able they would be to act quickly. This
subcommittee needed to be moving forward now.
Mayor Leiken said the Lane Metro Partnership had a database, information and direct contact with
DLCD. The elected officials could use the bully pulpit, use the information from the Lane Metro
Partnership, and move forward, with a six month sunset.
Commissioner Handy asked if they could get this on their agenda in two weeks to discuss and address.
Councilor Clark said he was supportive of moving ahead quickly. The elected officials could do
something the other organizations couldn’t such as deal with the regulatory environment the businesses
were operating under, which Springfield had done so well.
IT WAS MOVED BY SPRINGFIELD COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY EUGENE
COUNCILOR CLARK TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGERS TO CREATE AN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TEAM. COUNCILOR WOODROW MADE AN AMENDMENT,
AGREED UPON BY COUNCILOR CLARK, FOR THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO SUNSET AFTER 6
MONTHS. MEMBERS WOULD BE SELECTED BY EACH JURISDICTION.
Councilor Fleenor noted that the County Administrator was not part of the motion.
COUNCILOR WOODROW MADE AN AMENDMENT, AGREED UPON BY COUNCILOR CLARK,
TO INCLUDE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AS THE AUTHORITY TO CREAT THIS
SUBCOMITTEE FOR THE COUNTY INVOLVEMENT.
Councilor Woodrow restated the motion: TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGERS AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR TO FORM AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TEAM WITH A
SUNSET OF 6 MONTHS AND TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS WITH TWO MEMBERS
FROM EACH JURISDICTION APPOINTED BY THE BOARD CHAIR AND MAYORS.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 17 FOR AND 1 AGAINST.
ADJOURNMENT
March 3, 2009
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Lane County
Page 11 of 11
The Springfield and Eugene City Councils adjourned at 1:39pm.
The Lane County Board of Commissioners recessed at 1:39pm.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Sidney W. Leiken
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder