Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 27, 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 February 11, 2009, Work Session, February 11, 2009, Executive Session, February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting, and March 9, 2009 Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.February 11, 2009, Work Session B.February 11, 2009, Executive Session C.February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting D.March 9, 2009, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090427\S0904272A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 11, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. Fire Chief Randall Groves briefed the City Council on a chemical spill incident that occurred at approximately 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, and distributed copies of a report regarding the incident. Mr. Groves noted that the small hydrochloric acid spill from a railroad tank car on the Union Pacific Rail Road yards property had been properly dealt with by Fire & EMS Department (EFD) personnel. Ms. Ortiz thanked both Chief Groves for his briefing and the EFD for their professional response to the incident. She noted that she was glad that the incident had been covered by local media outlets. Chief Groves noted that the council members could feel free to contact either him or Deputy Chief Joe Zaludek if they had any further questions regarding the incident. A. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Interview Process AIC Human Resources Director Alana Holmes and AIC Recruitment Selection Manager Becky Hopkins coordinated with the City Council members and various members of City staff a suitable date for the four police auditor candidate interviews. The council members and staff briefly discussed their respective availability with regard to the police auditor candidate interviews, with Mr. Zelenka suggesting the possibility of splitting the interviews over two consecutive days. Ms. Ortiz wanted to make sure that the interviews were conducted before the next council break and feared that the candidates might get hired in other job searches if the interview process took too long. The council members agreed to schedule the police auditor candidate interviews for Tuesday, February 24, 2009, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, February 25, 2009, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Ms. Holmes noted that recommended internal stakeholder panel information had been distributed to the council by Ms. Hopkins and asked if the most recent recommendations regarding stakeholder panel participants were acceptable to the council. Ms. Holmes added that staff’s recommendations regarding the stakeholder panel were intended to mirror the strategies used in the City’s 2006 hiring process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka felt that the recommended list of internal stakeholder panel participants was very heavily weighted toward the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and suggested that the panel be supplemented with other City executives or division representatives. Ms. Holmes responded that the council was free to add other members to the panel but advised that any such persons should have a thorough understanding of the nature of the police auditor position. Ms. Holmes, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that members of the Civilian Review Board would be included in the community member panel to be conducted during the interview process. Ms. Piercy suggested that members of the business community and homeless advocacy community be included on the community member panel. The council briefly discussed various community members and City representatives that might serve on the community member panel during the interview process. Ms. Holmes reminded the council that the internal stakeholder panel would be meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009. Ms. Holmes confirmed that the council had had the opportunity to weigh in and give input on which groups or individuals should be included in the community stakeholder panel. She further noted that the council had been considering either identifying particular groups who would choose and send their own representatives, or having each council member identify two individuals who would be invited to serve on the panel. Ms. Ortiz felt that the councilors should each submit two names of recommended community panel participants using the staff’s list of recommended groups to help identify those persons. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to have each City Councilor and the Mayor submit two names from the list of organizations recommended by staff to serve as participants on the community member stakeholder panel during the police auditor candidate interview process. Ms. Taylor felt that suggesting names from the list of staff recommended groups was not a good idea and alternatively suggested that the councilors and Mayor should chose two names regardless of their group affiliation. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute that each City Councilor and the Mayor choose two individuals to serve as participants on the community member stakeholder panel during the police auditor candidate interview process. Mr. Clark maintained that selecting names from a list of recommended groups might create a less balanced panel although he noted that he could find either approach acceptable. Ms. Ortiz, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Zelenka, noted that it would be feasible to select names from the recommended groups list and then select additional individuals to supplement the community panel if needed. Both Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Pryor found Ms. Ortiz’s hybrid approach acceptable. Ms. Taylor did not like the categories from the list of organizations recommended by staff such as “people of faith.” She felt that representatives from University of Oregon student groups should be included on the community panel. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark worried that a simple selection of individuals by council members might result in an imbalanced community panel. Mr. Zelenka restated his support of Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to use a hybrid approach to the selection of community panel members. Ms. Taylor asked who would be responsible for determining the authority of the groups and categories recommended by staff. Mr. Zelenka replied that the council members and the Mayor would make such determinations. Ms. Ortiz noted that she had drafted a preliminary list of individuals based on previous City hiring processes and while the previous panels appeared unbalanced to her, she did not intend for the selection of individuals using the groups recommended by staff to be an immutable list. She suggested that the council and Mayor should feel free to add individual names to the lists if their participation in the community panel appeared warranted. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Taylor’s previously stated substitute motion. The motion failed, 2:6 (Ms. Taylor and Mr. Clark voting in favor). Ms. Piercy reminded council members that the panel selection strategy in the previous hiring process had been to allow groups to select and send their own representatives to serve on the community panel. Mr. Zelenka, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Ortiz, wanted to offer a friendly amendment to Ms. Ortiz’s original motion whereby the council would review the recommended groups and their selected representatives and then determine any gaps that might be filled by selections of individuals by the councilors and the Mayor. Ms. Ortiz maintained that proceeding in the manner stated by Mr. Zelenka might make the panel selection process much more complicated. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, amended her previous motion and moved to have each council member and the Mayor submit two names and then add any supplemental groups suggested by council members to use as a template in the selection of community panel members in the police auditor candidate interview process. The motion passed, 7:1 (Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Ms. Holmes noted that she would need to have the names of any additional organizations or groups by the end of the day and the names of any individuals by Friday, February 13, in order to have them included in the community panel selection process. Ms. Holmes noted staff’s recommendation that the McNutt room be used for the internal stakeholder panel and the City Council Chamber be used for the community stakeholder panel. Ms. Piercy confirmed there were no objections to staff’s recommendation. Ms. Holmes noted staff’s recommendation that City tours offered to the police auditor candidates as part of the interview process be conducted by division managers and/or executive managers who were not otherwise part of the interview process. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the tours be conducted with a community member as well as a division manager. Ms. Piercy confirmed for Ms. Holmes that there were no council objections to Ms. Ortiz’s suggestions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Holmes asked for the council and Mayor’s positions on providing for travel expenses for the spouses of the police auditor candidates. Mr. Pryor felt that the City could not afford the expense of paying for the travel expenses of spouses. Ms. Piercy maintained that if the four candidates under consideration were indeed the final candidates, it might be advisable to pay for the spouses’ travel expenses since it would be much more expensive to go through the search process all over again if none of the four candidates were eventually hired. Ms. Ortiz suggested that given the costs and logistics involved, the City might offer to cover half of the travel expenses for the police auditor candidates’ spouses. Ms. Piercy averred that the spouses of the interview candidates served an extremely important role in the hiring process and that it might not be advisable to skimp on their travel expenses. Mr. Zelenka concurred with Ms. Piercy’s statement and suggested that the City at least cover the airfare expenses for the spouses of the police auditor candidates. Ms. Holmes concurred with Ms. Piercy’s assessment of the role of spouses in the hiring process. Mr. Brown noted that covering the travel expenses of the spouses of only three candidates would be much less expensive than having to go through the search process all over again. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Brown’s statement. Ms. Piercy, noting no objections from the council, confirmed for Ms. Holmes that the City would cover the travel expenses for the spouses of the police auditor candidates. Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session to an executive session at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened the regular work session at 12:49 p.m. A. WORK SESSION Use of Facility Reserves – Next Steps on Police Patrol Facility Mr. Ruiz directed the council to their copies of his February 11, 2009, memorandum regarding the use of the City’s Facility Reserve for the design and construction of a police patrol facility and briefly summarized the information contained therein for the benefit of the council. Mr. Ruiz proceeded to give a brief overview of the two options and the recognized best outcomes of those options presented in the memorandum, noting that staff was currently recommending the first option to move all the Eugene Police Department services out of City Hall and into their own facility. He then proceeded to summarize the two-phase process by which the City would proceed should the council approve Option 1 as recommended. Mr. Ruiz noted that the costs listed in the two-phase process of Option 1 were preliminary and would most likely be revised as the planning of the project progressed. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Ruiz for taking their recent input regarding the matter and putting it into action so promptly. He reiterated that the notion of addressing the state of the current City Hall facility had been a serious concern for at least the last ten years and that the funds to address the issue were not newfound money or any type of slush fund, but rather part of a reserve that had been specifically put away to address the types of deficiencies found in the current City Hall facility. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling noted that the use of the funds in the manner described by Mr. Ruiz was not a political tool to favor one department of the City over another but rather an attempt by the City leaders to provide the safest possible facility in which the City’s emergency responders could operate. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved as follows: (1) To develop a conceptual plan and estimate for (a) making seismic upgrades to City Hall to meet the life/safety standard, and (b) expanding Municipal Court’s space to meet the court’s needs; (2) To use appropriated but unspent city hall complex master plan funds to complete an analysis of potential sites owned by the City but limited to downtown, to determine the most suitable site for a police facility and return with a final recommendation on that location; (3) To develop a cost estimate for a phased police facility, rather than a patrol facility with the first phase consisting of space for the patrol function - but designed so that it could be expanded into a building for the entire Police Department; and (4) To investigate the willingness of EWEB to eventually sell its administration building to the City for use as a city hall, and if there is such a willingness, undertake and bring back to the council a preliminary analysis of the pros and cons of using that building for city hall. They City Manager shall return to the council with the information described above by April 15. Until the council makes decisions - after receiving the information described above, the City Manager should not include in his proposed budget the use of any portion of the facility reserve. Ms. Taylor thanked Mr. Ruiz and his colleagues for their work on the planning process and noted that while she would rather vote on each point of the recommended motion separately, she would be happy to support the motion as it provided for the creation of the safest facility possible. Ms. Taylor further noted that she was glad that the plan called for all of the Eugene Police services to be housed in one facility and felt it was strange that historically the Police Chief’s office location had been separated from the officers under their command. Ms. Taylor felt that the council and City staff should take into account the results of the previous ballot measures regarding the facility reserves and that subsequently the public would need to be made aware of the reasons and circumstances behind the council’s directives to staff regarding the construction of a new police facility. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that any specific directives to budget for seismic upgrades to life safety standards into any planned facility would need to be incorporated when he returned to the council with further information on April 15. Ms. Taylor was pleased that the planning process described in Mr. Ruiz’s memorandum specifically stated that any new facility be based in or around the downtown area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Clark asked that the City Manager’s Office include a plan to retrofit and utilize the unused space in the current City Hall facility. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion to direct the City Manager to request that EWEB include any directives or intentions to negotiate with the City for the use of their administration building into their ongoing master plan process. Mr. Poling accepted Mr. Clark’s friendly amendment to the previously stated motion. Ms. Ortiz indicated her support of Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion and further noted that while she was supportive of intentions to construct a new police patrol facility in the downtown area she would like the West Eugene area to be considered as well. City Attorney Glen Klein, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, said that the City of Eugene had the first right of refusal for the EWEB administration building property. Mr. Zelenka felt that the planning process described in Mr. Ruiz’s memorandum represented a comprehensive plan for addressing a variety of City needs. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the only downtown sites that would be considered for a new police patrol facility would be those currently owned by the City. Facilities Project Manager Mike Penwell briefly described some of the City-owned sites that might be considered for the new facility. Mr. Zelenka commented that if the City were to vacate its current City Hall facility, the facility would then need to be demolished as no one would want to undertake a remodel or refit of such a seismically questionable structure. Mr. Pryor noted he was prepared to vote on the motion as a whole rather than voting separately on individual parts of it. Mr. Pryor reiterated that the City could only spend the Facility Reserve Funds once and that those funds should not be put on the table in any budget committee discussions for any uses outside of those for which the Facility Reserve Fund was originally created. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, noted that he would be returning to the council with more concrete financial information regarding the planning process on April 15. Mr. Brown noted his support of Option 2 from Mr. Ruiz’s memorandum and that the phased approach described therein would engender greater trust among the public. Mr. Zelenka noted a great deal of uncertainty in the preliminary costs presented by Mr. Ruiz and further noted that the council would need clearer cost information regarding the project when he returned on April 15. Ms. Piercy expressed that the planning process under discussion presented a strong direction for the City and took care of a variety of the City’s future needs. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion with Mr. Clark’s previously stated friendly amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 11, 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 12:44 p.m. Ms. Piercy adjourned the executive session at 12:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 23, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTER Lane Transit District Board Member Greg Evans presented the City with a token of appreciation from the committee that organized the honoring of Rosa Parks with a statue on the mall. He underscored their appreciation for the contributions of the City, City Manager Jon Ruiz, the City Council and Mayor, and for Francisca Johnson of the Human Rights Program office. Mayor Piercy received the plaque and read its inscription aloud. Everyone present applauded. Mr. Evans noted that the City of Eugene was the first city in the country to have a sculpture of Rosa Parks located in a transit station. Mayor Piercy thanked him for coming. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Greg Bryant , 2173 Alder Street, said the Tango Center was thriving “in some ways” and in other ways had “some difficulty.” He felt it was a point of civic pride, as it was the largest dance hall/educational facility dedicated to the Argentine Tango in the country. He said it also mounted the largest weekly tango event in the northwest. He averred that approximately 10,000 people had taken tango lessons at the center. He believed it to be a “major downtown institution.” He said the center had never asked for money from the City and was not asking for it now. He related that the owners had decided not to provide the center with a lease four years earlier. He felt that this made it difficult to provide stability for the center. He stated that the owners were willing to sell the building, built in 1929 as the first farmers market. He said the center wanted to utilize the City’s offices to help negotiate a purchase. He thought they needed six months to raise the money. He requested that the City act as an intermediary. nd Ev Marcel , 2125 West 22 Avenue, averred that Argentine Tango was “all about connection.” She believed the tango had the power to connect people and community of all generations and all races. She asserted that historically in times of economic woes people had gone out to dance for health reasons and to feel good. She asked that the City MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting “do something tried and true from the past.” She cited the City Council goal for being the City of the Arts and Outdoors. She felt that the Tango Center had already reached the City’s goal. She underscored that the center needed a place that was secure and stable. She noted that she taught in one of the at-risk alternative high schools and some of her students were learning the tango. She reiterated the request for help. Rebecca Oswald , 685 Figueroa Street, explained that she was a professional composer and pianist and served as the volunteer music director for the Tango Center. She related that she had been dancing the tango for four years and had been accompanying the classes for three years. She said she would love to provide the Tango Center with a greater variety of music. She related her wish list for the center: a better piano, better acoustic treatment in the interior, a larger library of tango music to play, and to develop a local house band to play musical arrangements and to invite tango musicians from “all over the world” to include Eugene in their tours. She did not think any of these things would require much investment. She thought the center could develop an annual festival. She asked the City to consider facilitating taking over the lease. Maggie Tryk , 1992 Washington Street, stated that she was a single working mother. She had started dancing the tango and had started hosting the Monday night tango event. She invited the councilors to join her. She said a lot of people come to the downtown area because of the center and that if it closed down there would not be a place to gather downtown. She listed the things that were happening in the center, which included a farmers market. She underscored that all of the people who worked at the Tango Center were volunteers. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, passed out some photocopied information. He congratulated the council on its vote to explore the possible use of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) headquarters building for a new City Hall. He thought that with some work the existing City Hall could be the police department. He related that he had been talking to a planner about form-based land use codes and the Walnut Node. He had urged the planner to “ask the difficult questions” so that the City did not “repeat past vision failures in the Walnut Node.” He stated that two forums on the Walnut Node were being held on February 24 at the Northwest Christian College (NCC) in its banquet room. He said it was not listed on the City’s Public Meetings Calendar, though it was listed on the City’s Web site. He urged the council to ensure that such meetings were on the calendar. He averred that the problem with node visioning was that “a lot of pretty pictures were put up” and there was no back and forth about what the past “sticking points” were. He asserted that they did not talk about the price tag on the project, which he believed to potentially be $100,000. He suggested that the historic preservation staff be brought in so that buildings such as the Joe Romania building could be integrated into “some future neighborhood.” He felt that densification would then not happen in four- or five-story blocks. Lucille Schaffer , 580 Crest Drive, expressed concern about the road conditions of Crest Drive but she was also concerned about the cost of improvements. She questioned how Crest Drive residents could afford it. She asked the council to “please take it easy” on them. Marion Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, felt that living in a city or town had advantages in the services it provided such as fire protection and library. She asserted that the City of Eugene had antiquated codes that “allowed” the City Council to “single out” a small group of citizens to pay “a large amount of money for the benefit of the entire city.” She declared that taxing “the few” for the benefit of everyone was not “the American way.” She asserted that a history of having a “bad law” did not make the practice right. She questioned the constitutionality of the code. She opined that the residents of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street should not be “singled out” to pay for street improvements. Kim Heddinger , 763 Crest Drive, was unhappy about the way that City of Eugene charged homeowners for rebuilding the street they lived on. She took issue with the small number of people who were being asked for a benefit to “many.” She averred that there were approximately 183 homeowners who would be asked to pay for a $6 million project. She noted that approximately 143 homeowners resided on the streets that emptied into Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street. She encouraged the councilors to study the engineer’s report on the traffic MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting counts. She thought the fact that the streets were never constructed properly to begin with should be taken into consideration. She felt they had not been maintained or replaced in “a responsible manner” by the City of Eugene and because of this the “burden” would fall solely on the shoulders of the residents. She opined that this was “wrong and unfair.” She believed that the estimated cost of $180 to $200 per lineal foot was not within reality of what a citizen of the community should be reasonably expected to incur, especially given current economic conditions. She asserted that homeowners were facing a bill that ranged between $10,000 and $20,000. She added that residents were “losing sleep” over the assessments. Lynell Stokes , 763 Crest Drive, asserted that the deterioration of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street had been an ongoing problem for 30 years. She credited the neighborhood association for helping to develop a plan to construct new roads. She approved of the design of the roads and she looked forward to having a safe street to drive, bicycle, walk, and run. She felt that the way the improvements were being assessed was “just not right.” She questioned why this “huge financial burden” would fall on the residents with street frontage given that many other vehicles traversed the roads. She averred that 75 percent of the people who would use the new roads would not have to pay for them. She asked the councilors to consider the activities in Wayne Morse Park, which caused many people to drive on Crest Drive who did not live there. She listed some of the other driving uses of Crest Drive, which included school buses. She asked the council to change the road project assessments. Bill Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, echoed concerns expressed about assessing the families that lived on Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard $10,000 to $20,000 during one of the “worst financial crises” in their lifetimes. He considered the assessments to be “unfair at every level.” He thought that the current economic situation created the perfect time to “fix an unsustainable and outdated assessment policy.” He related that councilors Brown and Taylor had indicated to him that they considered the policy to be unfair but difficult to change because of how long it had been implemented. He opined that “long-lasting bad policy” could not be an argument for its continuance. He asked the council to consider enacting a citywide or ward-wide assessment in order to spread the financial burden. He thought a small assessment on many tax lots would raise as much or more money for future projects. He believed that unfairness to one group of citizens was unfairness to all citizens. Michiel Frishert , 251 West Broadway, #207, noted that he had come to the United States eight years earlier from the Netherlands. He said he lived in an apartment across from the Tango Center. He had started coming to Eugene one year earlier as part of his job as a chief software architect for a videogame company and he had started taking tango lessons. He had liked it very much and ended up moving to Eugene six months ago, in part because of the Tango Center. He averred that the center had helped him to make friends and feel at home. He lauded the tango activities for bringing him out of his work mode. He had tried to find a similar facility in San Francisco and there was no such center. He related that he had looked in New York City and found two similar centers but they were not as inviting as the Tango Center in Eugene. He added that his back problems had improved as a result of tango dancing. Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, Ward 3, stated that bicycling reduced pollution and could be a solution to many of the problems in the world. He lauded Councilor Solomon, who was not present, for speaking out in favor of bicycle lanes for the Crest Drive area. He averred that allowing people to safely and conveniently use the transportation device of their choice was something that Eugene needed to follow in all cases. He agreed that the streets in the Crest Drive/Wayne Morse Family Farm area were the only way for hundreds of residents to leave and return to their homes and that traffic in and out of the area were added to by many factors, including the park and Crest Drive Elementary School. He related the story of a friend whose children wanted to ride their bicycles to school but could not because the road was too unsafe and, thus, had to be driven. He cited the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) and Lane County Transportation Rule, both legally enforceable rules, which required that bicycling be made available by local governments. He recalled the funding swap that the City of Eugene and Lane County had made, and that $2 million of the swap would be utilized to fix and rebuild the streets. He averred that the money had to be spent wisely and this meant that the streets should include a bicycle lane. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting David Gusset , 1611 Lincoln Street, Ward 1, urged the council to come to the emergency aid of the Tango Center any way possible. He said the eviction notice required the center to be out of its building by February 28. He asked the City to “take this opportunity” to acquire the building from its owners and restore it. He felt that the downtown was the City’s cultural center with venues that provided food and cultural experiences. He believed that architecture was a key element that provided a sense of place in history. He noted that most of the architectural heritage had been demolished or covered over in the 1950s and 1960s. He acknowledged the desire to have more people move into the downtown area but he thought very few people were inspired to “surround themselves with a cultural vacuum.” He averred that the City would be wise to do everything possible to bring back the “architectural and historical richness” of the downtown in order to get more people there. He opined that the Tango Center had made excellent adaptive reuse of the former public market building and had become an important contributor to the social fabric of the community and an important part of the vitality of the downtown area. He supported granting recognition to the building for its architectural significance and its place in local cultural history. Jean Heneghan , 32547 Beymer Road, stated that she was a local realtor and an avid tango dancer. She asked that the council do what it could to keep the Tango Center open. She said if they wanted to get more people downtown there was no better way to get more “bang for the buck.” She considered the center to be a wonderful venue for people of all ages. She declared that tango dancing was good for all people and had been a good influence on young people. Tom Heneghan , 32547 Beymer Road, believed that the Tango Center had improved the atmosphere downtown. He felt there was some danger that things could “turn around and go the other way.” He asked the council to take this opportunity to keep the downtown “moving in the right direction.” Drix , Ward 3, observed that Oregon had just celebrated its sesquicentennial. He commented that there was a lot of pain in the history and it seemed that it had been resolved, as exemplified by the new sculpture of Rosa Parks. He said Rosa Parks had “just decided to sit.” He thought that sitting was something that everyone had in common. He related that Slumdog Millionaire had won a lot of academy awards. He pointed to how much wealth people had here. He remarked that Eugene had a lot of nothing, as exemplified by the two holes in the downtown area. He showed the council his “award,” made out of a stolen Mercedes emblem hung on a Mardi Gras chain he found in one of the holes. He said he would talk next time on “toilets that give back” and how they could help the community. Joe Collins , P.O. Box 24411, commented that the Crest Drive group was the best organized Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) people he had ever seen. He urged the council not to make any decision based on what they said at the present meeting. He noted that he had voted for Mayor Piercy because she supported the police oversight system that answered to the City Council. He thought the former mayor and some councilors would have preferred to have the Police Auditor answer to the City Manager. He felt that it would be easier to intimidate the City Manager than to intimidate five councilors. He opined that the judges, “cops,” and district attorney’s office used injustice and intimidation to “rule the City.” He reminded the council of his Web site, seethelawsuck.com. He expressed disappointment in some of the votes of councilors Ortiz and Clark. He asserted that they had supported giving “tax deferrals to any contractor.” He thought it was time for Councilor Ortiz to ask the other councilors to support a clinic in her ward. He averred that since the death of “Mercy Hospital,” a clinic would be a realistic request for her constituents. He believed that there could be more done for the homeless of the area. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, Ward 2, welcomed Councilor George Brown. She noted that she was Vice President of the Southeast Neighbors. She opposed the aerial spraying of bacillus thuringiensis subspecies Kurstaki (Btk) to control the gypsy moth over 600 acres in southeast Eugene. She said the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) claimed that Btk was safe and organic; she wished to point out that arsenic and uranium were also organic and they were not safe. She asserted that such spraying was not safe for people with asthma and could cause headaches, nosebleeds, respiratory problems, and flu-like symptoms. She believed that because Btk was a type of bacteria, they could “find their way deep into… lungs and into intestines” and there had been no long-term testing of MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting problems created by this phenomenon. She related that the ODA indicated that it would be safe to go outside 30 minutes after aerial spraying, but she understood that small particles had been found floating in the air up to nine days later. She said the ODA had sent 1,700 notices to the area, but 13,000 people lived in the southeast neighbor- hood. She had sent out a notice to her database of area residents, gathered during the “Amazon Headwaters issue.” She alleged that she heard from several dozen people that they had not received notification. Because of this she thought the public record should be held open longer than March 6. She acknowledged that if the gypsy moth was left unchecked it would devastate the forest and she did not want to advocate for doing nothing. She believed that ground spraying would be less risky. She provided a letter from a neighbor. Tom Kamis , 94 West Broadway, said he lived in Ward 7. He thanked Councilor Ortiz for inviting him for being part of the Police Auditor commission. He hoped that more people in the public could take advantage of those types of opportunities. He related that he had poured his “heart and soul” into his restaurant in the downtown area. He said the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) had been trying to make something happen on the Kesey Mall so that there were all-inclusive activities for people in the downtown area. He believed that the Tango Center should be saved because it supported what everyone wanted downtown. He averred that the urban renewal projects that had been looked into were just trying to build “what the Tango Center already has.” He said there were some business owners in the downtown area who were willing to help the center become profitable. He suggested that the City provide bridge funding. He said there was money to help future entrepreneurs open businesses. He added that he had tried to call Connor and Woolley and his calls were not being returned. Jan Fillinger , 695 Crest Drive, Ward 2, stated that the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street road repair project was slated to be completed in 2009. He said the council would soon be asked to select a contractor and to determine the assessment for residents. He considered the possible assessment of $10,000 to $20,000 per person to be an excessive burden on a few people. He urged the council to consider changing the assessment policy because it was a lot of money even in the greatest of economic conditions; it was unfair for a few households to pay for the road. He likened it to a tax on a few people to benefit many. He also believed the current assessment protocol was outdated because current construction costs had outpaced individual incomes. He said Crest area residents bore the burden of all of the traffic and would bear the burden of the construction. He urged the council to change the policy. Dana McGuire , 3445 Kincaid Street, stated that she had moved to Eugene from Houston, Texas, in part because of hearing about the Tango Center from a friend. She went to the Tango Center once a week. She felt that people were happy to have something wholesome to do and it would be a tragedy if it closed. She commented that there were few cities that had “such a cool thing” and the Tango Center presented the opportunity for Eugene to “stay rockin’.” Steve Ward , 84434 Pheasant Lane, Pleasant Hill, spoke in regard to the Coburg Road annexation, Agenda Item 8. He said the annexation would facilitate and enable the extension of Chad Drive to North Game Farm Road and because the City Council had assumed the responsibilities of the Boundary Commission, which had been disbanded by state legislation, the council would vote on it. He related that he was one of the landowners whose property was being annexed. He noted that he had provided the City with right-of-way in return for the City assuming all responsibility for the annexation. He estimated that the City had spent over $1 million in the acquisition of the property and in engineering costs. He related that there was an element of doubt that the annexation would be approved, though he could not understand why this would be so. He was present to advocate for the annexation. He stressed that the City had a “huge amount of money” invested in the property and it was already deeded to the City of Eugene. The property was outside the city limits but was within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He declared that the Chad Drive extension “just needed to happen.” He averred that if it did not happen, people would be left wondering why so much money had been spent. Lance Kaufman , 1894 Harbor Drive, Springfield, voiced his support for the Tango Center. He noted that many of his comments had already been said. He related that he was a PhD student at the University and the center had been his introduction to the community. He said even though he was an economist, he did not believe growth was sustainable. He had come to believe, however, that growth of a community and the growth of people getting together MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting and interacting was sustainable. He believed this was the type of growth that was important for the council to support. He added that he bicycled from Springfield to Eugene every day. He said without bicycle lanes he would not be doing so. He supported inclusion of bicycle lanes in the Friendly Street project. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Clark thanked the people for coming. He asked City Engineer, Mark Schoening, to come forward to respond to a question. He noted that Mr. Schoening, Public Works Director, Kurt Corey, and several other staff people had been very helpful to the people in Ward 5 with a project much like the Crest Drive area, also a street that had not been improved to city standards. He recalled that the process was complex for citizens to vote on whether or not they wanted to upgrade their street. He asked when the vote to upgrade Crest Drive had taken place and how long the vote was “good for.” Mr. Schoening explained that there were two ways that a Local Improvement District (LID) could be initiated: the property owners could come together and initiate it or the City Council could initiate the project. He related that the council had initiated the Crest/Storey/Friendly project, the Chad Drive project, and the Maple/Elmira project of which Councilor Clark was speaking. Councilor Clark asked when the projects had been initiated. Mr. Schoening replied that they had all been initiated in the past three years through the budget process. He said before a contract was awarded to initiate construction on any of the three projects there would be a public hearing before the Hearings Official. He stated that if the people who would pay for 50 percent or more of the assessed cost remonstrated against the project, it would be heard by the City Council. He added that a two-thirds majority of the council was then required to move a project forward. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Clark, Mr. Schoening stated that the hearings for all three of the projects were scheduled for some time in April. Councilor Clark wanted to ensure that the people who would be assessed were completely aware of the process. Mr. Schoening responded that everyone concerned would be notified as to the time and place for the public hearing. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for coming. She hoped that the City could find a way to delay the aerial spraying in order to gain more information. She agreed with Crest area residents that the assessments were “outrageous” and the wrong way to pay for streets. She asked for information on whether the side streets that accessed Crest Drive to get out of their streets could be assessed. She also believed that the Tango Center was important for the downtown for all of the reasons that its proponents had listed. She believed that it fostered a connection to the University and provided a place for youth to go. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for coming. She asked if there would be a difference in the street assessment methodology if the street was classified as a collector versus a local street. Mr. Schoening affirmed that there would be. He said the underlying principle in the assessment code was that regardless of the classification of the street one lived on, everyone would pay the equivalent of a local street assessment. He explained that it would be different for the Maple/Elmira project than for the Crest Drive area. He further explained that the Chad Drive assessments would not be for the bicycle lanes or the center turn lanes, but would pay for the sidewalks and the rest of the asphalt. Councilor Ortiz ascertained from Mr. Schoening that there were “different monies” for the different parts of the projects. She recalled that in the three years that the City had been involved in the context-sensitive design process with the Crest Drive area residents, they had objected to reclassifying the streets to collectors. Mr. Schoening confirmed this. Councilor Ortiz did not disagree that it was a lot of money but she believed that the City had done its due diligence. She asked if there would be a liability issue if the City did nothing and there was an accident that involved a bad outcome for someone that resulted from the condition of the road. City Attorney Emily Jerome responded that this MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting was a larger question, though generally she believed that the City would not be liable unless it had been negligent in some way. Councilor Ortiz said this would be her concern; that the City could be held liable if it chose to do nothing and an accident occurred. Councilor Ortiz said though she was not certain the City had what the Tango Center needed “right here right now” she believed the City should try to provide aid to businesses that brought positive activity to the downtown area. She added, in response to the testimony about the possibility of spraying Btk, that she hoped the City could have some influence over that decision. Mayor Piercy asked the City Manager to comment on the Tango Center. Mr. Ruiz replied that it was premature to comment on it. He said they should talk through options at a later point. Councilor Poling stated that the work session on the street assessment policy was scheduled for March 9. He was aware of the problems that the assessment methods created, from experience with the Harlow Road area. He underscored that the Crest Drive area streets were not built “wrong,” they were built to the existing county standards of that time. He said the streets had been annexed into the City since then. He related that the Harlow Neighborhood Association had a subcommittee that had been meeting for two years to work on the assessment issue. He added that he hoped that the annexation that the Chad Drive project would require would be approved. He wanted to remove the obstacles to it. Councilor Poling remarked that an eviction should not come as a surprise after four years without a lease. He was a little disappointed that the Tango Center had not taken some action between four years prior and the present week to work out something. He underscored that though the City of Eugene could do “some marvelous things” it needed more than one week to do them in. He averred that the conversation should have started “a couple of years ago.” He said he would have to see what information the City Manager came back with before he considered investing any money in the building. Councilor Zelenka was also concerned about the potential spraying of Btk in the south hills. He recalled hearing a scientist say that malathion was safe when the Bay Area was being sprayed for the Med fly. He did not feel confident in the ODA’s claim that Btk was safe. Councilor Zelenka felt the road assessment policy was unfair. He reiterated that the council had a discussion on the policy scheduled for a work session in March. He asked Mr. Schoening to explain why the City’s policy was to make people on unimproved streets help pay for bringing the street up to city standards. Mr. Schoening responded that the policy had been “more by practice” dating back more than a hundred years. He explained that as the City had improved its streets, a portion of the costs had been assessed to the abutting property owners. He said once the improvements were completed, the City assumed the responsibility for maintenance of the streets into perpetuity. He acknowledged that the City had a $170 million backlog in preservation and maintenance work. He stated that the City also had 50 miles of unimproved streets that were expected to be brought up to the city standards. Councilor Zelenka commented that the Tango Center’s predicament was “not an easy issue.” He said it was not whether or not the center was “cool,” built community, or brought people to the downtown area – it was a business that was struggling financially. He questioned whether it was the City’s role to bail out businesses. He noted that a friend of his had just had to close down a long-time restaurant business in Eugene and wondered if the City should also have helped that business stay open. He reiterated that one week was not a very long time period in which to accomplish anything. Councilor Brown averred that aerial spraying in the south hills was the wrong way to go. He believed that hand spraying and pheromone trapping would be a better solution. He also hoped that the City could come up with good MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting solution to the Crest Drive assessment issue. It did not seem fair to him to only assess the people who had frontage on the street. Councilor Brown stated that he had contacted Eagles View and presented an idea that would buy the Tango Center a little bit of time. He had not heard back. He closed by thanking everyone for coming down. Mayor Piercy related that she had contacted the ODA and requested that the record be kept open until March 13. She said the ODA had agreed to do so. In regard to the Tango Center, she appreciated all of the interest in it and that it was a place that made people feel welcome. She hoped the City could help to at least facilitate the conversation. Mayor Piercy reiterated that the council would discuss the assessment policy on March 9. She also wished to respond to Mr. Vishanoff’s comments. She said the police department was supposed to be in a facility that met certain seismic standards so that, if an earthquake struck, the department could continue to provide services. Councilor Clark commented that he was not sure he entirely agreed that the street assessment policy was not fair. He thought it was close to fair and he was glad the council would hold a work session in order to work on it. He said everyone on a street paid for it; they paid for it when the house was built and it was added to the price of the house and a person who moved into a house on a street that faced improvements was expected to pay for it as well. He agreed that the burden placed on people in these times was high. He believed that the people should have a voice to change the timing or the circumstance under which things were done. Councilor Taylor asked Mr. Schoening to stress to the people in the Crest Drive area that if more than 50 percent remonstrated, the project would not happen. Mr. Schoening clarified that the 50 percent remonstrance moved the public hearing from the Hearings Official to the City Council and, for the project to proceed, rather than a simple majority the council had to approve of it by a two-thirds vote. Councilor Taylor said the issue the Tango Center faced had arisen at the last minute. She felt that if the City could somehow facilitate some more time for the center to continue to exist, the City was doing something for the City and not for a particular person or business. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 26, 2009, Work Session B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4964 Adopting an Inflationary Adjustment of Systems Development Charges for Parks System, and Local Wastewater System, Stormwater System, and Transporta- tion System; Superseding Administrative Order 58-08-02-F; and Amending Resolution No. 4900 D. Adoption of Resolution 4965 Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Old Coburg Road Annexa- tion/A 08-7) Mayor Piercy noted that Item C had been deferred. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item C. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non- unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions on Legislative Policy from February 11 and February 18, 2009 MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting 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 February 11, and February 18, 2009, Intergovernmental Relations Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those Intergovernmental Relations Committee meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed un- animously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy directed the council’s attention to the bills that were not unanimous. Senate Resolution 1 – Urges governor to withhold deployment of Oregon National Guard to Iraq or Afghanis- tan. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Support position on the Senate Resolution 1. Councilor Poling explained that he had voted in opposition to this resolution because of language that seemed to make reference to the President not setting any plans into place to withdraw the Oregon troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. He said the President had only been in office for a little more than a month and needed to be given a chance. He felt that without an exit strategy to protect the troops that were there, the wrong message would be sent. He averred that they needed to be shown support in addition to bringing them and all of the troops home safely. Councilor Pryor appreciated the debate on the resolution. He felt that the staff recommendation was the wiser one because, while many people did not make a distinction between the country’s action in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he did. He said he might consider the military action in Iraq to be an “incredibly ill-considered and bad thing to do” but he did not hold the same position about Afghanistan. He could not support “lumping” them together. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, that the language in the resolution was language on which many communities were voting. Councilor Clark echoed Councilor Poling’s concern. He stressed that he took this very seriously. He had lost a good friend from college in Afghanistan in September. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:3; councilors Ortiz, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in favor. Senate Bill 227 – Increases the penalty for knowingly furnishing alcohol to persons under the age of 21 years and imposes suspension of driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges for 90 days in certain instances. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on Senate Bill 227. Councilor Taylor explained that she had moved to oppose the bill because she believed that the penalty was too extreme. She could approve it if it applied to furnishing alcohol to people who were under the ages of 16 or 18, but to penalize people who supply alcohol to people under the age of 21 seemed extreme. She remarked that she knew a lot of respectable people who furnished alcohol to people under the age of 21. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. House Bill 2403 – Authorizes forfeiture of a vehicle with a hidden compartment if the vehicle was used or intended for use in commission of criminal offenses. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Support position on House Bill 2403. Councilor Taylor opposed the bill because she did not know how one could tell if a vehicle was intended to be used in the commission of a crime. Councilor Ortiz supported the staff recommendation. She said it had been made clear that this was directed at cars that were modified for drug trafficking. She noted that there were also concerns expressed about vehicles that had been contaminated by the chemicals used in the making of methamphetamine. Councilor Clark asked if the forfeiture was meant to occur before or after a conviction. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill would address those instances where there had been probable cause to believe that the car was intended to be used or had been used for commission of a drug crime. She said forfeiture would be a recommendation at the time of sentencing. She noted that there had already been a hearing on the bill, which had been brought forth by the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association. She stated that there would be amendments introduced to clarify the definition of a compartment. She related that their concern was that, once such a vehicle had been obtained, they did not want it released back to the public because of potential hazardous drug residues or that the modifications made to a vehicle had rendered it no longer safe. Councilor Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Wilson that forfeiture would not occur until after sentencing. Ms. Wilson explained that the District Attorney could make a recommendation that the vehicle be forfeited at the sentencing and then the car could be either modified, the compartment removed, or the vehicle destroyed. Councilor Zelenka asked if there would be amendments to allow for modification to eliminate the hidden compart- ment and have the owner pay for it. He asked if this would be instead of forfeiture. Ms. Wilson responded that this depended on how extreme the modifications were. She explained that if the modifications were such that the hidden compartment could not be corrected, then the car could be destroyed. She noted that the hearing included those vehicles that had been contaminated with substances that could not be corrected. Councilor Zelenka asked what “or intended” meant. Ms. Wilson replied that this had been brought up by a committee member. She said the Oregon State Police (OSP) officer that testified stressed that an officer had to have probable cause and without that the forfeiture could not take place. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in favor. Councilor Taylor asked if the bill specifically indicated that the forfeiture would occur if drugs were present. Ms. Wilson replied that drugs did not have to be present. She said a vehicle had to have been modified to include a hidden compartment that was not a glove compartment or another container inside the vehicle. Councilor Taylor remarked that she could imagine “lots of reasons” that people might want to hide something in their cars. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in opposition. House Bill 2427 – Provides that a person commits the offense of refusal to take the test for intoxicants if the person refuses to submit to urine or blood tests when requested to do so under the implied consent law. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 Support on House Bill 2427. Councilor Taylor said this was just like the bill the council had discussed at its previous meeting. She believed that taking blood and urine were a violation of civil liberties and a “terrible invasion of privacy.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark agreed. He felt the bill was a fourth amendment invasion and went beyond a reasonable scope. Councilor Poling underscored that the bill only required such testing in very limited situations. He averred that all it did was expand the current law. He reiterated that a Drug Recognition Expert with many hours of training would be brought in to assess a person before the decision to require such testing would be made. He said the bill would institute the same penalty that was required by law for a person who refused a breathalyzer test. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:2; councilors Clark and Taylor voting in opposition. House Bill 2428 – Increases the penalty for assault in the third degree if the defendant commits the assault by means of a motor vehicle and was driving while under the influence of intoxicants. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on House Bill 2428. Councilor Taylor did not believe the penalty should be worse than the penalty for any other assault in the third degree. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in opposition. Senate Bill 29 – Clarifies that a county, city, or metropolitan service district may adopt an instant runoff voting system for nomination or election of candidates to county, city, or metropolitan service district offices. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to direct staff to monitor Senate Bill 29. Councilor Taylor wanted to support the bill. She recalled that this approach was recommended by the Charter Review Committee. She said it was the process used by the whole country of Australia. Councilor Clark felt that the bill would make things more difficult. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the motion to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position on the bill. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:2; councilors Poling and Clark vot- ing in favor. Mayor Piercy supported monitoring the bill. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Taylor, Clark, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Senate Bill 422 – Increases the penalty for driving with a suspended or revoked license. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position on Senate Bill 422. Councilor Poling related that there were concerns voiced by the Municipal Court judge and his staff about imposing mandatory jail time if it could not be enforced, given the lack of jail space. He said his view was that they were planning for the future; if “some day some miracle happened” and the City and County had enough jail space, people needed to be held accountable for their crimes. He stated that there were nearby communities that had the capacity to hold people accountable for the crimes they committed. Councilor Ortiz supported the staff recommendation to oppose the bill because of the inability to keep people in jail. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor thought the motion should have been to support the bill. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend the motion to direct staff to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on the bill. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed, 5:2, councilors Zelenka and Brown voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the motion passed as amended, 5:3; councilors Zelenka, Brown, and Ortiz voting in opposition. House Bill 2426 – Imposes a minimum fine of $2,500 and mandatory imprisonment for a person convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants if the person had 0.20 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person at the time of offense. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position on House Bill 2426. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had a hearing earlier in the day and it had been amended. She related that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had objected to the bill and asked that it be amended to eliminate the mandatory jail time but reduce the level of intoxication to .15 percent. Those amendments were adopted and the ACLU had pulled its opposition. Councilor Poling moved to amend the motion to direct staff to adopt a Priority 3 Support position. The motion died for lack of a second. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. House Bill 2429 – Modifies qualifications for property tax exemptions for business firms eligible to participate in an enterprise zone program. It requires firms engaged in private construction projects with a value of $5 million or more to comply with the prevailing wage rate law. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to direct staff to monitor House Bill 2429. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:2; councilors Poling and Clark voting in opposition. House Bill 2430 – Defines “building construction” and modifies the definition of “residential construction” for purposes of applying prevailing rate of wage to projects that predominantly provide affordable housing. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to direct staff to monitor House Bill 2430. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Poling, Zelenka, and Clark voting in opposition. 5. ACTION: Appointment to Civilian Review Board Councilor Clark reiterated his request for staff to circulate a poll to the councilors on whether the council should hold a work session to discuss changing the number of civilians serving on the Civilian Review Board from five to seven. He wanted to run the selection process for the potential additions to the board concurrent to the hiring of the new Police Auditor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Snell Fontus to Position 2 on the Civilian Review Board, the unexpired term of Munir Katul, for a term ending on October 31, 2010. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 6. ACTION: FY 2010-2015 Draft Capital Improvement Program Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt the FY10-FY15 Capital Im- provement Program incorporating the recommendations forwarded by the Budget Committee and staff. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 7. ACTION: 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 (VRI 09-1) Councilor Clark recused himself from the vote as he did business with the developer involved. He said he had consulted the City Attorney and legal counsel indicated that his involvement there did not constitute a conflict of interest. He recused himself, nonetheless, from the vote on Item 7 and the vote on Item 8. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill th 4995, an ordinance vacating a portion of the alley right-of-way at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street. Mr. Ruiz said the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) had indicated that no one had testified in regard to this item. He clarified that one person had testified. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:0:1; Councilor Clark abstaining. 8. ACTION: Resolution 4966 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property Located at th 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street, Eugene, Oregon (WG Development Co./Applicant) Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 4966 approving a th Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 10 Avenue and Charnel- ton Street, Eugene, Oregon (WG Development Co./Applicant). Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:0:1; Councilor Clark abstaining. 9. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4996, an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Clark voting in opposition. 10. ACTION: An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District, the River Road Park and Recreation District, the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District, and from the Santa Clara Water District Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4994, an ordinance providing for withdrawal of territories from special districts. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 13 Regular Meeting The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 14 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon March 9, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). Mr. Clark declared that he did regular business with one of the principals in the firm of W & G Develop- ment (WG) and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict was recusing himself from participation in work session Item A. A. WORK SESSION: th Update on the Sale and Development of 10 and Charnelton Site th Nan Laurence, Planning and Development Department, stated that redevelopment of the 10 and Charnelton site had been the City’s priority for a number of years as it was a key site in the downtown core. She said goals for the site’s redevelopment focused on multi-story, mixed-use development to add vitality and activity to downtown. She said last fall the URA had selected WG and their $34 million proposal for redeveloping the site with 83 housing units over two floors of office space. She said the URA’s decision included direction to staff that if an agreement with WG was not executed by March 31, 2009, negotiations begin with Opus NWR Development. She said staff had worked closely and collaboratively with WG to help the project move forward, but national and local economic conditions had prompted WG to request an extension of at least six months and preferably one year. th Ms. Laurence referred to a document entitled 10 & Charnelton Development Scenarios that described development timelines under the current WG agreement: a WG extension of six months, a WG extension of 12 months and development by Opus. She said the WG project still faced uncertainty because of office tenant and financing issues. She said the $40 million Opus project consisted of 210 units of student housing and Opus had reaffirmed its interest in redeveloping the site. A key feature of the Opus project was continuing strength in the student housing market, despite current economic conditions. She conveyed Opus’ proposal to enter into a binding agreement as soon as possible to purchase the property nine months later; construction would begin in spring 2010 and the project would be ready for occupancy in late summer 2011. City Manager Jon Ruiz clarified that staff regarded the WG proposal as a good mixed-use project with considerable potential for revitalization of the downtown area. He said staff had worked diligently to make the project successful, but it was a much different economic climate now than when the proposal was selected and WG was not in a position to purchase the property by the March 31 deadline. He thought the Opus project was less speculative and had more certainty, largely because of the stability of the target market. He said the Opus project had positive aspects for the downtown area, such as an earlier construc- MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 1 Work Session tion timeline to provide momentum downtown and a strengthened connection to the University of Oregon. He said the goal for mixed use downtown could be achieved by looking at downtown as a whole; while a particular project might include mixed uses, housing was one of those uses and the Opus project would support that goal. He recommended that the URA direct staff, in the event the transaction with WG did not close by March 31, 2009, to bring final terms with Opus to the agency as soon as practicable after the council break. Ms. Piercy understood the financial uncertainties everyone faced and while she had supported the decision to select the WG project, it had been somewhat fragile financially and that did not appear to have changed. She felt Opus was in a stronger financial position and had a better chance of success at this time. She supported the City Manager’s recommendation. Mr. Zelenka still felt the WG proposal was the right one with a mix of uses he wanted to see downtown. He agreed that the economic situation had changed, but was willing to grant WG an extension of six months. He was willing to consider a different proposal if nothing was resolved within that six-month period. Mr. Brown pointed out there was no guarantee with the Opus project either. He supported a six-month extension for WG. Mr. Poling liked the WG project because of the mix of uses. He was concerned with the high concentration of college-age people that would occur in downtown under the Opus project and noted the problems that occurred elsewhere in the community where there was a concentration of student housing. He could support a six-month extension, but did not want to see a situation occur similar to the one with Oregon Research Institute (ORI). Mr. Pryor said he liked the idea of student housing downtown and originally favored the Opus proposal, but supported WG when the council selected that project. He could support the WG extension request if it was limited to six months, with a status check at three months. He did not want to abandon WG because of circumstances beyond its control, particularly if an extension would allow the project to move forward. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the Opus proposal was also not a certainty. She asked if the WG proposal could be converted to housing instead of a mixture of office space and housing. Ms. Laurence said that had been discussed but the economics of commercial office space would better support the development and a mix of uses would provide a better return. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he was not certain the nature of the project could be changed by directing staff to convert it to housing. He would need to research whether that was possible and what process would be required. Ms. Taylor stated her preference for changing the WG project to housing only, with half the site used for a park. Ms. Ortiz said she would also like to see the site as open space, but the reality was that there were no funds to pay for that. She could support a six-month extension if there was a check on status at three months. She hoped if it became apparent to WG that the project was not viable it would inform the City of that so another proposal could be considered. Ms. Solomon said she initially supported WG because of the local aspect, but it was a very fragile project from the start and for reasons beyond WG’s control had not come to fruition. She was not convinced that an extension would change that and preferred to let Opus move forward with its project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Ruiz clarified that the check-in at three months was not for the purposes of terminating the agreement; a six-month extension would still be in effect. He noted that WG still had until March 31 to make a decision and could choose not to accept an extension. He also pointed out that it was not certain Opus would still be interested at the end of another six months. He said the council, at its regular meeting, would be considering th a supplemental budget for the URA related to the 10 and Charnelton site and recommended adoption so that the City could respond quickly if the WG project moved forward. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the agency director to amend the purchase and sale agreement to extend the due diligence period from March 30, 2009, to September 30, 2009, and the commencement of construction from November 30, 2009, to May 30, 2010, and request a written update from the developer three months into the extension. The motion passed, 6:1:1; Ms. Solomon voting no and Mr. Clark abstaining. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the agency director to explore with WG the possibility of making the project all housing. Mr. Klein clarified that the intent of Ms. Taylor’s motion was to direct the agency director to investigate and inform the council about the process that would be necessary to convert the project from mixed-use to housing. Mr. Zelenka indicated he was hesitant to direct the developer about how the site should be developed. He understood the need for housing, but if that type of development was viable, WG would make that decision itself. Ms. Solomon expressed concern that the motion would violate the request for proposal (RFP) process. She felt the council would be in violation of the RFP it had issued if it tried to change the nature of the project; if th housing was the desired use on the 10 and Charnelton site the RFP process should be reopened with new parameters. Mr. Pryor said he seconded the motion in order to obtain additional information. The motion failed, 4:3:1; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Brown voting yes, Mr. Clark abstaining. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee Report Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary thanked members of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) for their work on proposed revisions to Ordinance 20374. She introduced committee chair Tim Laue and vice chair John Ahlen. She said Mr. Laue would present the committee’s recommenda- tions. Mr. Laue thanked PAORC members for their dedication to the task set forth by the council and Ms. Medary, Mr. Ahlen and City Attorney Jerry Lidz for their contributions. He provided an overview of PAORC activities and said action had been taken on 12 of the 18 proposed revisions within the time allotted. He said PAORC had decided not to make a recommendation on the auditor’s authority for final adjudication and there was insufficient time to address the remaining issues such as the auditor’s participation in hiring, Civilian Review Board oversight of the auditor, subpoena power, training and discipline. He said PAORC was unanimous in recommending to the council that if the council wished, the committee was willing to MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 3 Work Session reconvene to continue to work on those issues. He said additionally PAORC recommended that the council make explicit its expectation that the police auditor and the council would work together to establish policies and procedures to carry out the underlying intent of the ordinance and the Charter and to consider identifying a smaller subset of the council to provide day-to-day supervision of the office of the auditor, and after two years review the council’s experience with that supervision. Ms. Piercy thanked those who participated in the committee for their efforts and responsiveness to the council’s direction. Ms. Taylor stated that her preference was to adopt the original 12 revisions and schedule a work session to discuss the other issues. She suggested voting on each of the PAORC recommendations separately. Mr. Zelenka commented that the committee had fulfilled his expectations and he appreciated the work of those involved. He regretted that representatives of the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) were unable to participate, but felt there was a broad spectrum of people across the community that produced the recommendations, most of which were unanimous. In those cases where support was not unanimous, Police Chief Pete Kerns had dissented and a memorandum explaining his positions was included in the agenda packet. He felt the intent of the original 12 items had been incorporated in the ordinance and many existing practices codified and clarified. He was prepared to move the PAORC recommendations forward to a public hearing, followed by a work session to discuss public input and amendment of the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Piercy said EPEA representatives were unable to participate in PAORC deliberations because some of the issues were considered bargainable and that would present a conflict for them. Mr. Clark asked why the District Attorney did not participate as an active member of PAORC. Mr. Laue replied that the council appointed the committee and did not include the District Attorney in those appoint- ments. Mr. Clark noted that the District Attorney had raised several issues related to the auditor’s office and hoped to hear about those at the public hearing. He suggested that Item 11, regarding a sufficient budget for the police auditor, should specify that expenses should be reasonable. Ms. Piercy said the District Attorney provided written information at the PAORC’s request. Mr. Poling was agreeable to asking the committee to work through the outstanding items on the list. Regarding Section 2.454(5), he felt that allegations against the Police Chief should go directly to the City Manager, who was responsible for hiring and supervising that position. He disagreed that the chief should be considered a police employee under those circumstances. He thought that conducting an administrative investigation concurrently with a criminal investigation was a bad idea; typically in other agencies the administrative investigation was suspended until the criminal investigation was completed to avoid putting officers involved in those cases in a position of making statements that could jeopardize the criminal case. Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Zelenka’s sentiments about the committee. He said there was a great deal of discussion on several of the items and the recommendations reflected those issues that had been resolved; the outstanding issues were too complex to be thoughtfully considered during the time allowed. He commended the committee for the amount of work it completed and was comfortable with the PAORC recommendations. He agreed it was unfortunate that EPEA representatives had recused themselves, but they had provided comments. He said deciding how to deal with outstanding issues could be the next step following disposition of the current recommendations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the committee’s work and looked forward to input from the community at the public hearing. She hoped that if a committee was established to consider the remaining items it would include some new faces from the community. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the outstanding issues represented a different level of discussion and would change the oversight system somewhat instead of clarifying intent and codifying practices. He hoped the PAORC would be reconvened for that task in order to take advantage of their experience. He said the Police Chief was not defined as a police employee, which was why the committee was recommending the addition of Section 2.454(5) to the ordinance. He said it would treat the chief in a different way while maintaining the oversight system by distinguishing the chief’s administrative role and the responsibility of the City Manager to provide supervision from times when the chief performed the function of a police officer. He said the committee, with the exception of the chief, strongly believed the Police Auditor should have the ability to conduct an administrative investigation concurrently with a criminal investigation to prevent unreasonable delays. Ms. Solomon asked if the language would allow the Police Chief to request that the Police Auditor not pursue an administrative investigation concurrently if circumstances warranted that and in the case of a disagreement, allow that decision to be made by a municipal judge. Mr. Laue said the Police Chief could request suspension of a concurrent administrative investigation, but a dispute would not be resolved by a municipal judge. He said it was clear during the committee’s discussions with others involved in police oversight systems that in 99 percent of cases, concurrent investigations were not an issue; he cited the language recommended by PAORC, which required consultation with the Police Chief and appropriate prosecutor, but left the decision regarding concurrent investigations with the auditor’s office. He said other systems throughout the country were silent on the issue because it was seldom a problem, and it was reasonable to expect the auditor, chief and prosecutor to behave professionally, and do what was in the best interest of the public. Ms. Medary said the City Manager’s recommendation substituted language that would refer resolution of disputes about concurrent investigations to a municipal judge, but that was not the language the committee was recommending. Mr. Clark was intrigued by the recommendation to involve a municipal judge and was interested in more information. He asked if concurrent investigations violated any labor agreements the City currently had in place. Mr. Lidz said he did not believe they would. Mr. Clark said he did not want to leave any issues unresolved that would result in a continuing community argument. He hoped the public hearing process would explore all aspects of issues and recommendations from others. He said the original 12 revisions were put forward as simple implementation of the Charter, but the remaining six items could be perceived as an expansion of the auditor’s authority beyond what the people had voted on. He was not certain the PAORC was the right body to consider expansion of the role of the auditor’s office and a different committee should move forward with the other six items. Mr. Pryor agreed the PAORC did a good job with the 12 items that were straightforward with respect to working within the current ordinance and Charter; it also discussed some of the issues that could be considered policy matters and rightly said that should be considered in a larger arena. He said that could present an opportunity to enhance PAORC membership if it was reconvened to address policy issues. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said her interest was in achieving a more balanced membership on the PAORC; she did not object to reconvening the committee to move forward. She thought that some of the policy issues might need to go to the voters. Ms. Solomon suggested consideration of the outstanding items be postponed until a new police auditor was hired. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to accept the committee’s report and move forward with a public hearing on the proposed revisions. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to reconvene the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee after hiring a new police auditor to review and make recommendations to the council on the remaining six issues and before it was reconvened have the City Council reapprove the committee make up. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to work with her and one other councilor (to be appointed by the Mayor unless there is a volunteer) to (a) develop proposed protocols for how the council should fulfill its role as the Police Auditor’s supervisor, including the possibility that the council delegates to the council leadership of the day-to-day supervision of the Police Auditor, and (b) bring that proposal back to a council work session in April or May. Ms. Ortiz said her goal was to conduct some of the research for the council to identify a process for supervising the auditor’s office, including designating council leadership as the information conduit between the auditor’s office and the council. Mr. Clark agreed that supervisory protocols needed to be clarified and volunteered to work with Ms. Ortiz. He felt the lines of communication were very important and the auditor needed to have regular communica- tion with council officers, who could then involve the full council if they felt it was warranted by a particular situation or issue. Mr. Zelenka volunteered to serve on the committee with Mr. Clark and Ms. Ortiz. He agreed that the issue was one of effectively managing day-to-day communication with the council. Mr. Pryor agreed it was not an issue of authority, which rested with the full council, but one of providing appropriate supervision to a council employee. He supported the motion. Ms. Taylor said the matter required more thought and she would not support the motion. Ms. Piercy determined that Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Clark, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Solomon would develop and propose supervisory protocols for the Police Auditor to the council. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. C. WORK SESSION Street Assessment Policy MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 6 Work Session City Engineer Mark Schoening used a slide presentation to provide an overview of the City’s street assessment process, changes in 2000-2001, application of those changes and issues identified by the council. He noted there were 75 miles of unimproved streets in Eugene. He described the regulatory authority for street assessments and stated that the assessment procedure was governed by ordinance adopted by a two- thirds council majority and effective six months after adoption. He reviewed details of the local improve- ment process and formation of a local improvement district (LID). Owners of property bearing more than half the estimated cost could oppose the LID and the council would make the final determination. He said property owners could pay their assessments with personal financing or City financing and financial assistance was available to qualified owners. Mr. Schoening explained changes in the assessment process to achieve greater fairness, including the assessable costs, assessable frontage, equivalent assessments, street subsidy program, corner lots, primary access and vacant or partially developed lots. He said the council had raised the following issues: ? Financing – extend payment period beyond 10 years, defer until sale of property ? LID boundaries – identify travelshed, include cul de sacs, include properties that must use street to access property ? Individual properties – consider depth of property, benefit is the same regardless of frontage Ms. Piercy thanked Mr. Schoening for explaining the assessment process. She said the City had made efforts to be fair, but many people were facing difficult financial circumstances and property owners were very concerned about the amount of their assessments. Ms. Taylor objected to the assessment methodology, which she felt was unfair and unjust. She said most property owners would not qualify for the financial assistance options because of the low income require- ments. She noted that assessments were levied at completion of a project and asked why changes to the ordinance could not be enacted now, since the effective date in six months would still occur before the completion date of projects begun this summer. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the council could change the code; the question was when the change would become effective. According to the Charter, code changes became effective six months after adoption and would not apply to any improvements authorized by the council prior to that effective date. He said if the council wished to make changes to the code that would apply to projects like Crest Drive, those projects would have to be delayed until next summer. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Ruiz said that the council could change the assessment methodology, but in order for them to apply to the Crest Drive project, that project would need to be postponed until 2010. Mr. Schoening added that no-interest loans were possible, but a funding source for the City to carry the interest was an issue. He said the City would sell bonds to finance the assessable portion of the project and there would be interest on those bonds, but the City could pay the interest if a funding source was available. Ms. Taylor asked if federal stimulus funds could be used to finance the project. Mr. Schoening said they could be used for street improvement projects, but were limited to streets classified as collectors and above. Mr. Clark thought the council’s last changes to the assessment ordinance, with a couple of exceptions, had resulted in a fair policy because everyone paid for the curbs, gutters and roadbed in front of their property. He observed, however, that the assessment amounts were massively unaffordable and no one should lose their home or go bankrupt over a road improvement. He said neighbors could opt to not have the improve- ments done and as a councilor he would not override that decision. He preferred to have the council seek ways to make the project more affordable for property owners and favored strategies such as extending MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 7 Work Session payment periods from 10 to 20 years and paying assessments upon sale of the property. He would support delaying the project until better financing mechanisms were in place. Mr. Poling did not feel the assessment policy was fair. He referred to a project on Arcadia Drive and said there were several neighborhoods that used Arcadia Drive for access, but they did not have to pay for any improvements. He wanted to see those who must use a street for access to share in the cost of improve- ments. He asked how a buyer would know if there was an irrevocable petition on a piece of property. Mr. Schoening said it would be shown on a title report. Mr. Poling said he was willing to delay projects until there could be changes to the ordinance to make the process more equitable. Mr. Zelenka commented that people living on improved streets had already paid for those improvements; people living on unimproved streets had yet to pay. He felt the policy was fair and owners would strongly object if they were assessed not only for improvement of the street in front of their property, but for improvement of nearby streets as well. He was willing to consider changes to the process, but there would always be those who thought the methodology was unfair, no matter what it was. He noted that fairness of the assessment policy was a completely different issue than the affordability of assessments and was willing to postpone projects while the council sought options to make it easier for people to pay assessment costs. He noted that the City wanted to classify streets in the Crest Drive project as collectors, which would have made them eligible for federal funding, but the neighbors had opposed that classification. Mr. Pryor distinguished between discussing assessment policies as they applied throughout the City and issues specific to the Crest Drive project. Regarding assessment policies, he was not certain whether it was fair as circumstances and costs had changed significantly since the ordinance was put in place. He was willing to review the assessment methodology to determine whether changes were necessary. He said the only option for the Crest Drive project was to postpone it until the council had an opportunity to review the current policies as he did not want to see people lose their homes. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Schoening explained that the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would receive $6.5 million in federal transportation stimulus funds. He said the funds would be allocated among Lane County, Coburg, Springfield and Eugene. Staff had proposed funding $3 million in pavement preservation projects in the City of Eugene, consistent with council direction. He said the stimulus funds were subject to all federal requirements and pavement preservation projects were the easiest to get through the federal process because work occurred between the curbs of an existing, improved street and extensive environmental documentation was not required. He explained that property owners across the City paid for improvements on arterial and collector streets through transporta- tion system development charges (SDC) when a home was built; those funds were pooled to pay the community’s share of improvements on arterials and collectors. Ms. Ortiz asked what other projects would be constructed if Crest Drive, and projects with similar concerns were postponed. Mr. Schoening said the funds to be used for the City’s share of costs would be repro- grammed to other pavement preservation projects, with a portion used to replenish the delayed assessments funds for future LIDs. Ms. Ortiz recognized property owners’ concerns about assessment costs, but she did not want to miss opportunities to provide jobs on road improvement projects. Ms. Solomon asked if Maple Drive and Elmira Road were collectors. Mr. Schoening affirmed that they were. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon remarked that there were at least two mobile home parks with direct access from Elmira Road, representing a large number of homes that would not be assessed for the Maple/Elmira project. She said that seemed unfair and she was willing to review the assessment policies, although she was reluctant to postpone the project. Ms. Piercy said she was willing to consider options like expanding the boundaries of an LID to include cul de sacs that used another street for access, but cautioned that it would be difficult to develop an equitable approach. She also pointed out that in the Crest Drive project if assessments were expanded to property owners beyond those that fronted on the streets being improved, it was only fair that those owners should be able to participate in planning and designing improvements. Mr. Clark commented that people who lived on cul de sacs had already paid for curbs, gutters and roadbed in front of their homes and it was not fair to ask them to pay for improvements on another street. He said it was fair to assess owners for improvements to the streets in front of their property, but the issue was how to make it affordable. He was mindful that project costs would only increase in the future, but wanted to avoid the possibility of people losing their homes because of street improvements. He asked when the council would be making decisions on the affected projects. Mr. Schoening said a decision on the Maple/Elmira project would occur in mid-April and decisions on the Crest/Friendly/Storey and Chad Drive projects were scheduled in mid-May. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to hold another work session to consider a range of options that included financing mechanisms and other questions raised by the council. Ms. Piercy suggested polling the council regarding specific financing mechanisms to be researched by staff in preparation for a work session. Mr. Poling said the financing options identified in the agenda item summary were a good starting point. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 9 Work Session