Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: February 13, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2005, Process Session, December 14, 2005, Work Session, January 9, 2006, Work Session, January 9, 2006, City Council Meeting, January 18, 2006, Work Session, and January 23, 2006, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A.November 21, 2005, Process Session B.December 14, 2005, Work Session C.January 9, 2006, Work Session D.January 9, 2006, City Council Meeting E.January 18, 2006, Work Session F.January 23, 2006, City Council Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060213\S0602133A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 21, 2005–Process Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2005\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\cc051121m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYSeptember2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/18 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 2/6 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 2/6 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 2/7 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/7 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom Room—Eugene Public Library November 21, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 21, 2005, process session of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined by executive management staff, including City Manager Dennis Taylor, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Angel Jones, Lauren Chouinard, Kurt Corey, Susan Muir, and Matt Shuler, and City Manager’s Office staff members Mary Walston, Mary Feldman, and Lynda Rose. 1. PROCESS SESSION Public Meetings Law: Permitted Discussions among Elected Officials The council was joined for the discussion by City Attorney Glenn Klein. Mr. Klein explained that Public Meetings Law stipulated that any time a quorum of the council got together it constituted a meeting, including electronic meetings. The law did not address e-mail or chat rooms. He advised councilors that a quorum of the council in a chat room discussing public business constituted a violation of the law. Conversely, back-and-forth e-mail communications, including deliberation, do not violate the law. Mr. Klein noted the City’s system for sharing council e-mail with the public. He asked that the council avoid the use of private e-mail accounts when dealing with City business to ensure that proper records are kept, and reminded the council to alert Councilor Coordinator Lynda Rose when a confidential communication was sent so she can delete it from the public record. January 2006 Retreat City Manager Dennis Taylor anticipated the retreat would occur in January and asked councilors’ preference about scheduling the retreat on a weekend and their preferences for a location. He indicated that with council concurrence, he would check with,Julia Novak, the previous retreat facilitator, to see if she was available. The councilors generally favored holding the retreat on a Friday, although several indicated a willingness to attend on a Saturday or Sunday. Councilors did not object to Ms. Novak as a facilitator, although Ms. Taylor questioned the need for having a facilitator. Councilors had no particular location to suggest, although Mr. Kelly encouraged a location with the greatest public access, such as the Bascom- Tykeson Room at the Library. The council agreed that it would focus on progress review at the January retreat. City Manager Taylor indicated that a quarterly progress report on the council’s priority issues was available on the Web site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 1 Process Session Protocol for Contingency Requests from Nonprofit Entities The council acknowledged that not all requests were from nonprofits, and it was noted that in the past, the council allocated $60,000 for such requests, which had been useful at times in leveraging other money. The council briefly discussed how the process worked in the past several years and the potential for establishing a grant fund with council-established criteria for allocation. There was general agreement that a process was needed. The council agreed to refer the issue and the suggestion for establishment of a grant fund to the Budget Committee for further discussion, which would also allow for public input. Scheduling Ongoing Issues Where no Action is Necessary Mayor Piercy sought direction regarding non-action items, asking when the council wanted to hear progress reports. Councilors discussed the current approach toward updates, which was to schedule a council work session or for staff to provide a memorandum. Councilors indicated interest in avoiding unnecessary work sessions, although Ms. Solomon suggested that informational work sessions, such as the one held on the Rivers to Ridges project, could be very useful. After a discussion of various approaches, including additional memorandum updates, City Manager monthly reports, written summaries, adding committee reports to each agenda, and open work session updates to provide an opportunity for council reaction and feedback, the council agreed to defer resolution of the issue to the City Manager and Mayor Piercy because it would likely affect the agenda-setting process. Mayor Piercy called for a brief meeting break. Policy Concerning Inviting People to Speak at Council Meetings Mr. Kelly spoke to the issue, noting that on occasion it was suggested that a person in the audience speak to the council to clarify a point. He suggested that the council needed to establish a policy addressing the issue because it did not behaved consistently in the past when such situations arose. He added that he was unsure the council could do anything but prohibit the practice. Councilors were split on the subject, with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor preferring an outright prohibition on such speakers because of other opportunities that existed outside of work sessions to speak, while other councilors, including Mr. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Poling, were not prepared to eliminate the potential if councilors were seeking clarification on a point and the response could help them make a decision. Ms. Solomon did not think the issue arose frequently enough to be a problem. Ms. Ortiz indicated she also wanted to be able to ask people questions at work sessions. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about equity of opportunity and the potential loss of control of meetings. She pointed out that those invited to speak would only represent their own point of view. She thought staff generally had responses to councilors’ questions. She also agreed people had other opportunities outside work sessions for input. Mr. Papé suggested leaving the matter to the discretion of the Mayor, although he did not want such speaking opportunities to become venues for lobbying. Mr. Kelly pointed out that people could provide information to the council in advance of a meeting. He advocated for a policy to guide the Mayor. Mr. Poling supported deferring the issue to the Mayor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 2 Process Session Mayor Piercy observed that there appeared to be no consensus on the issue; some councilors supported an outright prohibition, while others preferred that people could be called on, depending on the circumstances. She determined there was support for giving her some discretion to make a decision. Discussion Regarding Council Meeting Times The council discussed a suggestion from Ms. Bettman to have extended Monday evening meetings and to no longer convene in work sessions on Wednesdays. After discussion about the impact of longer meetings, which some councilors believed could potentially affect councilor work schedules and council productivity, councilors agreed to retain the current meeting schedule for the time being. Ms. Taylor suggested the council consider changing Budget Committee meetings to daytime hours. Bringing Up, Deliberating, Noticing, and Voting on New Regulations, Measures, Resolutions, etc., at Council Meetings Mr. Pryor expressed a need for clarification in this area and asked if the council had an established policy. If not, he thought one was needed. He said the council often talked about the need for public input but items that he thought the public might want to weigh in on were raised and voted at a meeting with virtually no input. He pointed out that bringing up a new issue during committee reports at a council meeting meant that the public did not receive notice. He acknowledged that councilors had the right to make motions without notice to the public, but he questioned whether that was what it should do as a general practice. Ms. Bettman observed that sometimes the council convened work sessions to give staff direction but there is no motion listed in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), thereby necessitating that councilors create one. She believed that if staff expected the council to take a vote, a motion should be included in the AIS. In those cases, she added, at least the public would be aware that the council intended to discuss the topic. She pointed out the council’s notification process for an intent to make a motion, and said she was not sure how to involve the public in that process, or if the council could include the public in every decision. Mr. Kelly noted that the council’s process regarding its intent to offer a motion at a meeting should be codified in the operating agreements. There was general agreement. City Manager Taylor noted the council’s rule related to motions on page 7 of the operating agreements. Mr. Kelly believed that frequently, issues require quick action and may not be scheduled in a timely way. He invited ideas on how to get information out to the public and suggested that councilor motions be posted on the City’s Web site. He also pointed out that motions could be tabled. He acknowledged the distinction between motions during a work session and motions during committee reports, and agreed that the AIS for agenda items scheduled for work sessions should include a motion if staff wanted direction. He said a suggested motion was a red flag to the public that action could occur. Ms. Solomon referred to the recent memorandum from the Police Commission requesting council action, which was raised during committee reports and made her feel “put on the spot.” She believed the issue deserved a more robust discussion than it received. She thought the same was true of the council’s recent discussion on “upzoning” and establishing a Ballot Measure 37 Fund. Ms. Solomon believed that topic was so significant it also warranted a public hearing. She asked how the council could avoid such situations in the future. Mr. Poling said that he was sometimes unable to get to his computer to check mail before meetings, and was uncomfortable taking action without discussion. He wanted to limit the number of such situations MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 3 Process Session and focus on the agenda. He agreed that staff needed to indicate what direction or action it needed the council to take in the AIS. Ms. Taylor said that sometimes work sessions were more like study sessions, and she did not think that significant decisions should be made at work sessions. Further, she did not think that councilors should be required to notify people in advance of meetings if they intended to make a motion. She agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon regarding the Police Commission memorandum and said she had not felt comfortable taking action either. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that such motions could be tabled. Mr. Papé thought the council and public needed advance notice of such motions and thought posting motions on the Web site would be a good solution. Speaking to the statements that such motions could be tabled, he pointed out that he attempted to do so several times without success, frequently for items that were not time- sensitive and could have waited. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the council should not be voting on issues it had not discussed before. However, she assumed all councilors were getting the same information and had the same access to staff. Mr. Pryor indicated that he did not want to slow down the public process and acknowledged that emergen- cies occur. However, he said, the motions being made were not related to emergencies. He said that proposed motions should be in the meeting packet whenever possible as the council’s e-mail communications did not reach the public. He also thought most motions should be reserved for regular meetings as opposed to work sessions. City Manager Taylor said that work sessions were generally opportunities for the council to give direction to staff and that usually took the form of motions. He said that when councilors provided notice of anticipated motions, it allowed the appropriate staff to be present at council meetings. He anticipated that workshops would not include suggested motions for action. Ms. Bettman said staff-recommended motions should be in the packet. However, she did not think Mr. Pryor’s suggestion was practical for most council-proposed motions given that the packet was mailed the Thursday prior to council meetings. She said that the council’s protocol during her tenure had been that councilors had the right to make a motion on any topic at any time. She saw no reason to change the current approach, which took into account the time limitations faced by the council. She said that the agenda could be modified with a disclaimer that indicated action might not be limited to the published agenda. Speaking to the issue of the Police Commission memorandum, Ms. Bettman said that the motion was a recommendation clarifying next steps in the process so when the council did take action, it would have the needed information. Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. He said the majority of work sessions do include a motion for direction to staff. He said his motions were a direct result of packet review. Speaking to the issue of councilors not being able to review their e-mail prior to a meeting, he reminded the council that staff solicited councilors as to their preferred mode of communication. Mr. Pryor said his goal was to avoid having the council in a situation where it was making major decisions with a significant impact on the public without any public input or worse, any notice of the decision at all. He wanted to avoid the perception, factual or not, that people thought the council was acting out of the public eye. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 4 Process Session Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Ballot Measure 37 Fund was previously discussed by the council and a public hearing would occur before the council took any action. She did not think that councilors generally took action without public input as most times issues come back to the council at the regular meetings. Mayor Piercy moved the discussion on to the next topic. Voting in the Absence of Councilors Mayor Piercy sought clarification of Section 5 of the council’s operating agreements regarding the circumstances under which a councilor could request that action on an item be postponed. She wished to avoid the appearance of acting in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Kelly said that he was satisfied with the current council policy. He asserted that by council custom, such requests were made because of conflicting council business or because of family emergencies. He said key to him was that such requests were made as early as possible. Ms. Solomon did not think the policy should be limited in the manner suggested by Mr. Kelly. She said that the policy had not been abused, and she thought the council should be flexible. Mr. Poling pointed out to Mr. Kelly there was no language in the policy limiting such requests in the manner he suggested. He recalled his request to the manager that in his absence, action be postponed on the Goal 5 inventory. The lateness of his request was due to the fact that he had been waiting for some information he had not yet received. He said that the Goal 5 project was a 20-year process and a small delay would not have been a problem. He requested council flexibility in honoring such requests. Ms. Taylor said the Goal 5 process had been postponed already, and it had been underway “forever.” She thought such requests should be made sparingly. Mr. Papé disagreed with Mr. Kelly’s remarks about the council’s “customs.” He did not think the reason for one’s absence was relevant. He said that such requests should be honored because the process had not been abused. He was also frustrated when Mr. Poling’s request for delay was not honored, particularly with regard to the council’s boards and committees appointments, as the issue had not been time-sensitive. Ms. Ortiz said she was “here to work” and liked to get things done, but also wanted to be respectful of other councilors’ requests. She said that had she known of Mr. Poling’s discussion with the City Manager, she might have voted in a different way. However, there was no way for her to know that. Ms. Ortiz asked the council to avoid making the process into a political tool. Mr. Pryor suggested that any rule or custom was good as long as it was consistently applied. He agreed with Mr. Poling that the policy did not provide a requirement that one could only request a postponement because of family emergencies or council business. He suggested that if the council had the precedent of providing the courtesy of postponing action at the request of councilors who would be absent and subse- quently declined to do so, that stood out for people. He suggested the council keep in mind the Golden Rule. Ms. Bettman believed that past majority decisions about requests for postponement had been partisan in nature, recalling an instance when she requested a postponement and it was denied. She believed the policy had been enforced in a political way and the council should establish criteria related to illness or unavoidable obligations. She said she scheduled her vacations around council breaks. She called for a fair, consistent, and justifiable process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 5 Process Session Mayor Piercy thought the current policy created an appearance of arbitrariness and asked the council to reach a decision that everyone understood and agreed with. Mr. Kelly said that while the policy as written was not ideal, he thought it was satisfactory and believed it would be very difficult to draft criteria. He suggested that the issue was really one of mutual respect and being attentive to the public. He noted that he did not base his requests on any scheduled vote, but rather on his interest in the topic. He wished Mr. Poling had raised the issue of his potential absence earlier. Mr. Poling pointed out that he brought it up in public at a council meeting and it was reflected in the minutes. Ms. Taylor advocated for leaving the policy as it was, but to use it sparingly and to show respect. Mr. Pryor summarized the discussion, saying he believed he heard that the reason for an absence was not germane to the request to postpone action, that the council should honor such requests, and that they should provide the council with notice of the request as early as possible. Mayor Piercy suggested that there could be differences of opinion as to the timeliness of an action, and said the councilors should not take a council decision to act in their absence personally. Mr. Papé suggested that Mayor Piercy should announce a councilor’s request for postponement publicly at the beginning of the relevant item. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2005 Page 6 Process Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: December 14, 2005–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: BACKUP STORAGE: KYDec2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/23 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 2/1 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 2/1 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 2/7 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/7 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 14, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy noted that today’s meeting was the last meeting before the holiday recess. The next council meeting would be the State of the City event on January 6, 2006. She invited all to attend the event. Mayor Piercy reported that Santa Claus visited City Hall that morning to take care of a parking ticket; she regretted that she had been unable to do anything about the ticket. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue—City Hall Complex The council was joined for the item by Mike Penwell of the Facilities Division and Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects. Mr. Penwell said he was seeking council direction for implementing Phase 2 of the development plan phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan. Staff had identified two basic approaches, one that included more detail and more public process (Approach A) and a second that was more conceptual in nature and had less detail (Approach B). Mr. Penwell noted staff’s recommendation for Option A, with one of the additional services, the Generic New Versus Remodel Study. Mr. Penwell acknowledged the cost involved with Approach A but said staff recommended the higher dollar amount with the expectation it would result in more detailed information on which to base future council decisions. It also included more public involvement to gauge and build community consensus. Mr. Cohen briefly noted the input process associated with the development of the scope of service. He referred the council to the Attachment E to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), which was a preliminary task list and schedule for phases 1 and 2. He reviewed the document. Mayor Piercy noted that Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz were attending a conference on civilian police review and could not be present for the item. She called for council comments and questions. Mr. Papé asked for more information about the Generic New Versus Remodel Study. Mr. Cohen said that the study addressed how the City Hall building, if retained, could be used. He thought it would be difficult for the council to decide that without more information, so the consultants proposed to develop three distinct scenarios. One scenario retained the current building in its existing form and was premised on a new MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 1 Work Session building nearby or across the street. Another scenario was for new construction. The third scenario was more complicated and was premised on retaining as much as possible of the existing building structure but proposed to fit the entire organization in a remodeled facility. Mr. Papé asked if it was easier or more cost-effective to build new or to try to retrofit the existing building. Mr. Cohen said the experience of other municipalities indicated it was probably more expensive to retain the existing structure than build new. There were several factors to consider. He said that independent cost estimators concurred with those conclusions. Mr. Papé asked if the Council Chamber or a similar gathering space could be duplicated in a new facility. Mr. Cohen said that in terms of the dignity of a public gathering space that was appropriate for a govern- ment body to come together with the community, the answer was yes. He envisioned that such a facility would be state-of-the-art in terms of systems and technology. Mr. Papé asked for more detail on the Police Services Delivery Study. Mr. Cohen said his firm had a consultant on the project team with considerable experience in working with municipal police departments. He proposed to work with the City to facilitate a decision about the appropriate police services delivery model, examining both the experience of other communities and the internal operations of the department. There were also implications related to land; he pointed out that the operations side of police services must be housed in an essential services structure and designed to a higher seismic standard, which had cost implications as well. Mr. Papé believed the analysis of police services delivery being proposed was needed, particularly given the need for parking for police vehicles. Ms. Taylor suggested that police vehicles could be scattered across the city for traffic calming purposes. Ms. Taylor hoped the consultant would consider the relative importance of co-location of the departments and consider what needed to be together for the convenience of the public. She emphasized the importance of citizen involvement in the process so that the voting public felt that the decision was theirs. Ms. Taylor asked how much more expensive on average it was to renovate a structure rather than replace it. Mr. Cohen said that information was difficult to pin down until one went through the detailed seismic upgrading plans and their relationship to the programming in the structure. In this case, the City knew the City Hall structure needed to be upgraded, so at minimum the “bones of the building” would be saved and augmented. He noted that some general contractors were contacted as part of the study to get their sense of the issue, and they agreed with the conclusions in the study. Ms. Taylor said that people said it was cheaper to rebuild and then the price of rebuilding continued to go up. She said a new building was not necessarily better; for example, the sound system in the Bascom- Tykeson Room at the library was not as good as the sound system in the McNutt Room. Mr. Cohen said that his firm would take in to account everything from acoustics to mechanical space so the council could really understand every aspect of the decision before it was made. Ms. Taylor asked who would be involved in the citizen interviews. K.C. Cooper of the J.D. White Company responded, saying that between 50 and 60 people would be interviewed and would be selected by the council, staff, and the project team. The project team was seeking diverse input. Many interviews would be in small groups to reduce costs. Technical professionals, citizens, business people, and others would be involved. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor was concerned about relying too much on citizens who might be chosen for their standing in the community. Ms. Cooper said that the workshops would be inclusive and would try to involve those who do not normally participate in City affairs. The project team was trying to avoid over-reliance on the “usual suspects.” Mr. Pryor was very impressed with the process to this point and thought it gave the council the ability to evaluate its options. He said the cost differential was a consideration for him. He believed the citizen input process should be as inclusive as possible and suggested the more comprehensive process was the most appropriate and would produce the most realistic result. He encouraged the project team to be as thorough as possible in the process so the council had the information it needed to reach a decision. He supported Approach A. Mr. Kelly referred to the Generic New Versus Remodel Study, and said he was pleased that Mr. Cohen had mentioned a possible hybrid approach in his remarks to Mr. Papé. He had feared the issue was being cast and was reflected in the AIS as a “new versus remodel” issue but Mr. Cohen had explained the hybrid approach. He thought it was important for the public and council to understand that a hybrid approach was possible. Mr. Kelly said he did not doubt renovation could be more expensive than new construction, but cost was not the only factor he considered. For some people, the existing City Hall had symbolic value that must be considered in that discussion. Since the decision to retain or not retain City Hall was so fundamental to the future, he questioned why it was not included in both options. Mr. Cohen said that the City Hall issue was identified separately because it was a tricky thing to do; the project team was not designing anything yet because it was not in the design phase and had to make assumptions. The project team considered the issue in terms of how it could meet the program needs, deal with parking and adjacency relationships, and have an inviting building. Mr. Cohen said the project team learned in its discussion with other cities that the decision about whether to retain the building had to do with the community’s strength of feeling to retain the building. If that strong desire existed, that should guide all future decisions. Mr. Kelly asked how a development plan could be done without determining the fate of the building. Mr. Cohen said the project team was trying to give the council choices. The idea of the generic study came from the workshop and was not in the original scope of work. Because of the way the idea evolved, the consultant identified it as a separate element. Mr. Kelly asked Police Chief Robert Lehner why he believed the work associated with the Police Services Delivery Study needed outside facilitation. Chief Bob Lehner asked Mr. Cohen if his reference was to the model of police service delivery or the facilities that go along with that. If the answer was the latter, the study was the appropriate venue. Mr. Cohen confirmed that the focus was on facilities. He said his firm was offering the expertise of its consultant team to the City. However, his firm may not need to be involved. Mr. Kelly did not know why the City’s Facilities staff could not do the work required. Mr. Poling referred to the co-location opportunities listed in the meeting packet and asked if the discussion to come would be about sharing both space and sharing costs. He asked if that would be offered to the public for its consideration as he thought that discussion was very important, particularly as it regarded cost. City Manager Dennis Taylor suggested that would come out in the community process. He said that he talked to School District 4J and there was some interest, and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) also expressed interest in maintaining a downtown presence. He thought the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) might also be interested, and said it was important to find out. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Penwell said that he directed the project team to focus on the City’s needs first. He heard consensus from the council that the City needed to deal with its own space needs and costs first. He met regularly with the County and its priorities were not the same as the City’s with regard to the project and the funding it could provide. He thought the co-location question would be dealt with in the next phase of the project. Mr. Poling said the cost reflected just the beginning of the process. He said the added money was necessary to have the community process. Some of the added costs to the first phase were because of the public process. With regard to citizen interviews, Mr. Poling said he hoped not just the usual people were involved. He proposed a random selection process from voters’ lists, rather than asking individual councilors for their suggestions. He thought that would result in a true sampling of people not otherwise involved. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with Approach A for implementation of the Development Plan Phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan plus the Generic New versus Remodel Study and request of a Supplemental Budget an appropriation of $1,135,000 from the Facility Reserve. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Ms. Taylor asked how neighborhood outreach would occur. Ms. Cooper responded that the project team would work with the Neighborhood Program staff to meet with the different organizations. There would also be forums that would elicit comment from a sample. The project team planned to have neighborhood involvement in each of the forums. Ms. Taylor hoped the project team went to every neighborhood organization. She did not support the citizen interviews, and suggested that citizens be encouraged to attend neighborhood meetings or go to a forum. Mr. Kelly liked Mr. Poling’s suggestion for a random sampling of voters. Mr. Kelly asked the cost differential between approaches A and B. Mr. Cohen estimated a differential of between 20 percent to 25 percent. He said there were many reimbursable expenses associated with that process. Mr. Kelly said even Approach B cost more than he expected. He did not understand how Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) secured a 30 percent schematic design for $800,000 and the City’s was $900,000. Mr. Penwell said that the project was potentially $100 million plus, and the technical work being done represented less than one percent of the eventual project cost. The City was looking at more difficult questions and issues than EWEB had. The City was doing the most difficult part of the project at the front end. He had come to believe it was a good deal and an appropriate use of City funds. Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Penwell’s remarks helped address his concerns a little but he was still somewhat troubled. He suggested the council consider Approach B plus the Generic New Versus Remodel Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion by substituting Approach B and reducing the amount to $860,000. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Papé was concerned about taking something to the public that was very complex, and asked how the issue would be resolved. He did not think the current City Hall should be part of the complex, and wanted to remove the funding for the examination proposed and consider it separately. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion by removing the $85,000 for the Generic Versus Remodel study. Ms. Solomon said that many of her thoughts about the project were predicated on doing the project on the existing site. She asked if the motion implied the site would not be used. Mr. Papé said the building would not be used. The council would have to develop a process to determine whether to demolish or retain the building. Ms. Solomon thought the study was intended to provide that information. Ms. Solomon said she also wanted a new city hall on the current site and did not want to retain the existing building. However, she thought the study was needed because a certain element of the community would argue that the issue had not been studied and the council would have to halt work and commission the study anyway. Ms. Taylor did not think the public had the opportunity to make up its mind and she thought the study was basic to that. Mr. Pryor said that he also supported demolishing the building but he agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon, saying that for the sake of fairness the option should be explored. He could not support the motion. Mr. Kelly did not agree that the fact the building would not be used was a forgone conclusion, but he thought Ms. Solomon’s remarks were well-taken. The issue would still be there and must be addressed in some way. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:1; Mr. Papé voting yes. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Kelly voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Rules Concerning Dog Ownership in City Limits Mike McKerrow of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. He provided some background on the issue. He reviewed the complaints received to date, noting that most were about barking and the housing of three or more dogs. He said Springfield allowed four dogs per residence and Lane County allowed eight dogs per residence. He said that complaints were generally based on how dogs were managed. If the council chose to modify the code, the amendment would be included in the next round of code amendments to be considered by the public. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions from the council. Mr. Kelly said that the council’s action would merely lead to a public process. He did not know how he felt about the issue but wanted to hear the public feedback. Ms. Solomon thanked the council for supporting her work session request. She offered two examples of how the current code was a problem, one of which concerned a family that rescued dogs and had to put one down after a neighbor complained that they had three dogs. In another case, a daughter with two dogs MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 5 Work Session moved in with her mother who also had a dog. They were concerned they would be turned in by a neighbor. She believed the limit caused problems for otherwise well-meaning, good citizens. Mr. Poling said that like Mr. Kelly, he supported asking the public its opinion. He thought the number of complaints demonstrated that it was not a significant problem. However, the fact the code had not been changed since 1968 argued that a reexamination was needed. Mr. Pryor said that a constituent pointed out to him that people who had problems with barking dogs frequently did not know who to complain to or did not want to complain about their neighbors. He said that one barking dog was bad enough. He said the City should enforce its current codes. Mr. Papé said he was happy to look at the issue. He asked if there was a limit on other animals. Mr. McKerrow said the code contained a limit on dogs and had a section on large animals, such as farm animals. In general, those standards concerned larger lot sizes and a minimum square footage. Cats were not regulated at all by the Land Use Code. Mr. Papé thought the City should consider a limit on cats as well as a requirement for cat licensing. Ms. Taylor said there were many things that could be a nuisance in a neighborhood. She pointed out that frequently two people get married, and they had more than two dogs. She asked what they were supposed to do since for many people, giving up a dog would be like giving up a child. She did not understand the code’s hostility toward dogs. She pointed out that the City would issue a ticket without substantiation if someone complained. Mr. Poling said he would like to know about similarly sized cities and the number of dogs they allowed and the complaints they received. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to provide a new kennel definition allowing up to three adult dogs on a residential property in the package of proposed code amendments for consideration during the next phase of the land use code amendment process. The motion passed unanimously. C. WORK SESSION: Inappropriate Infill The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Department Director Susan Muir and Senior Planner Steve Nystrom. Mr. Nystrom noted that the issue was raised by the council and staff was present to answer questions. The packet included key components of the code that addressed the issue of infill. Mayor Piercy called for questions and comments from the council. Ms. Taylor said if this problem had not come to other councilors yet, it would. She believed it would happen increasingly. People were calling her and saying they formerly had a nice backyard and now they faced a wall. She said she supported Growth Management (GMS) Policy 6, which called for increased density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods. That was not occurring. She did not care about new housing developments because she presumed they would be designed appropriately and the people who bought houses in them would know what they were getting into. She did not think it was right to change the character of existing neighborhoods, and that was occurring. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor believed that regulations should be different for established neighborhoods. She thought 4,500 square foot lots were very small, particularly in established neighborhoods. She did not think flag lots should be permitted, pointing out that structures on such sites could be 30 feet higher than neighboring one- story structures. She said she had seen one such development ruin four backyards. It lowered property values and affected people’s peace of mind. The situation was worse when the development was on a hill. Ms. Taylor said that building height should depend on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kelly said he did not interpret GMS Policy 6 as implying increased densities happened only in new neighborhoods. He interpreted it as applying to new development anywhere in the community. He asked if there was any legislative history or intent the council could examine. Mr. Kelly agreed that inappropriate infill was occurring in the community, although he acknowledged people had different ideas about what constituted inappropriate infill. He liked the idea of addressing the issue through a combination of opportunity siting and density allocation. He said that opportunity siting could direct infill where it was appropriate, and combined with the density allocation, would make sure that everyone had a place to live in the future. He suggested that another place to address the issue would be through design standards, such as the design standards associated with multi-family development. The alternative path could be another approach. Mr. Kelly noted that there were currently no single-family design standards, although the council had spent considerable time discussing such residential design standards when it approved the Chambers Area Revisited Project. He suggested the council consider those standards when it considered infill issues in the future. Mr. Pryor said he thought progress was being made. He thought the City should do more of what it had done in the Chambers area to work with the neighbors while still maintaining its density goals. He agreed the council would have differing definitions on what inappropriate infill is, and that could be addressed as code revision opportunities came up. Mr. Papé said he also encountered the issue cited by Ms. Taylor. He hoped there was a way to get at the problem, such as through a zoning overlay. He asked how the City could make GMS Policy 6 work, given that the council wanted to increase residential densities throughout the community. Mayor Piercy said the problem for her was the notion of trying to be sensitive to individual neighborhoods and situations in neighborhoods while still having clear rules for people to live by. That conflict was a tough one. She understood the sensitivity issue, but she also understood that people planned their lives in accordance with City rules. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments. Ms. Taylor said the Chambers node was a good example of what could be accomplished, but she did not think the City could expect similar initiatives from other neighborhoods. She thought the issue was urgent because of the increased development that was occurring. She thought the height of driveways in flag lots needed to be addressed because people were building infill developments and raising the driveway four to five feet higher than the land, and then the driveway passed by someone’s back yard. The location of windows in buildings in proximity to each other was an issue. Ms. Taylor said that obstruction of views was another complaint she frequently heard. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that design standards were needed and that action was urgent. The City should protect those already in their homes as opposed to those who had not arrived yet. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor that such development was happening and it was occurring everywhere. Regarding the Chambers experience, he agreed that the City could not expect to see many such initiatives MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 7 Work Session repeated but the City could use the experience again and apply it to other areas as a starting point. He noted that the Chambers neighbors prepared a document regarding lessons learned about infill. He said the City should use that as history. Mr. Poling suggested there were three elements to the conversation: 1) preserving neighborhoods; 2) infill; and 3) buildable lands. He believed the council needed to consider the character of every neighborhood as well as the “big picture” in the form of the buildable lands supply. Mr. Poling said that not everyone wanted to live downtown or on a flag lot or on a lot close to their neighbors. He advocated for having more “big picture” discussion. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct staff to address the issues raised at this work session within the approved Planning Division high-priority work tasks. Mayor Piercy said that the Sustainable Business Initiative Task Force recently heard testimony that Eugene lacked a supply of close-in, condo-type settings for people who were willing to live more densely. She maintained that “it was a trend” with the “boomers wanting to downsize” and the City needed to address that issue at the same time. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council—Work Session DATE OF MEETING: January 9, 2006 TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060109m1.Doc BACKUP STORAGE: Lynn #22 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/14 lt _ Draft to Staff (Date/Initials) _2/6 bf_ Reviewed/Returned by Staff _2/6 ky___ Returned to Minutes Recording __2/7 ky_____ Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording __2/7 ky____ Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 9, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the January 9, 2006, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted that computer instructions in Spanish were being offered at the library. She thanked staff and councilors for their support at her State of the City address. Mr. Poling asked if the construction at the entrance of the Oakway Mall on Coburg Road was related to a new traffic signal. Public Works Director Kurt Corey replied that it probably was. Mr. Poling said he attended the restaffing ceremonies at Fire Station 9 and returning that engine to service was due to the work of the Budget Committee, councilors, citizens, and federal grant funds. He noted that Springfield was currently conducting a residential land study and the Home Builders Association had contracted with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to conduct a residential land study in Eugene. He asked if it was possible to combine those efforts, similar to the joint study of commercial and industrial land, to save costs and achieve efficiencies. He asked staff to explore that possibility. Ms. Ortiz reported that the Bethel Drive walking path had gone out to bid and she hoped the construction phase would begin soon. She said the path would be built along Bethel Drive and greatly improve safety in that area, particularly for children. Ms. Ortiz said the Lane County Human Services Commission recently formed a subcommittee, of which she was a member, to consider ways to reduce Community Health Center costs to better utilize those funds to provide services. Mr. Pryor said the Lane Metro Partnership met on December 15, 2005, and discussed the Royal Caribbean call center, which officially opened and had already hired 350 employees. He said the company would continue to expand its local employment. Mr. Pryor reported that he attended the Springfield State of the City address and was pleased to hear Mayor Sid Leiken mention several joint initiatives and their benefits to the metropolitan area. He said Molecular Probes and Symantec were expanding, Williams Bakery would be building a new facility, and there had MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 1 Work Session been an increase in inquiries by companies, but buildable sites were still an issue in the metro area. He hoped that a buildable land survey would be available as soon as possible. Mr. Pryor said that the use of rail was increasing as the cost of overland trucking rose due to fuel prices. Mr. Pryor said that Lane Metro Partnership Executive Director Jack Roberts was interested in pursuing a Supreme Court position and, if successful, would continue in his current position. Mr. Pryor said the Enterprise Zone Committee continued to develop initial concepts related to standards for types of jobs, training, reporting and investments. He said the 1997 standards were being reviewed for applicability and to determine if they could be updated to benefit the community and enterprise zone businesses. Ms. Bettman said she would provide the council with a report on her attendance at the National Association of Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement conference. She said she had an opportunity to meet the external police auditors from Portland, Oregon and Denver, Colorado. She said the Police Commission subcommit- tee that was developing a job description and qualifications for Eugene’s external police auditor completed its work and its recommendations would be submitted to the Police Commission on January 12. The council would receive the recommendations at its January 18, 2006, meeting. Mr. Kelly related that he received calls regarding noise associated with railroad crossings and a constituent email noted that the Federal Railroad Administration would conduct no-cost, unannounced monitoring of noise levels to provide solid data confirming or refuting claims that noise levels were increasing or out of compliance. He said a government could request that monitoring service and asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to explore the possibility and respond in a memorandum. He also asked for an update on the results of an earlier council motion regarding quiet zones. Referring to a memorandum from a subcommittee of the Human Rights Commission that reviewed the homelessness action plan, Mr. Kelly asked that the City’s homeless team’s response to that memorandum be provided to the council. Mr. Kelly invited the general public to attend a lecture on peak oil at the Hilton Hotel on January 10 at 7 p.m. Ms. Taylor introduced a visiting city councilor from Casper, Wyoming. She indicated she wanted to see an agricultural land study conducted in cooperation with Lane County. She said she received email regarding the escalation of fines assessed under the new housing regulations and agreed with the complainant that escalating fines for non-payment was unfair. She did not feel that escalating fines served any purpose and asked if the matter could be discussed. City Manager Taylor replied that the item could be set for a work session if a majority of the council wished to do so. He said the purpose of the regulations was to bring property owners into compliance and fines were a way of doing that. He said that in cases where compli- ance was an issue on a daily basis, escalation of fines brought about compliance sooner rather than later. Ms. Taylor asked whether a person would be put in jail if they did not pay the fines. City Manager Taylor said he did not know if jail was a possibility; but, at a certain threshold of noncompliance, the matter would go to Municipal Court. Mr. Papé thanked all those who made it possible to restaff Fire Station 9 and congratulated staff for obtaining the federal grant to support that effort over the next four years. He said he also received constituent calls regarding railroad noise and hoped that the City would pursue free federal monitoring of noise levels. He commented that increased freight traffic hampered passenger rail traffic between Eugene and Portland because the same tracks were used by both. He said that the Oregon Department of Transpor- MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 2 Work Session tation was combining the committees that dealt with passenger rail and freight rail issues into a single committee on rail. He did not know if that change would be beneficial to passenger rail. Regarding McKenzie-Willamette/Triad’s reported interest in the University of Oregon’s Riverfront Research Park, he asked if there was sufficient acreage available to meet the hospital’s needs. City Manager Taylor replied that there were two tax lots available; one had six or seven acres and the other was listed at over 50 acres; but when the riparian area was eliminated, only about 15 acres were developable. Ms. Solomon announced that on January 12, Willamette High School would present a celebration in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and a community celebration would be held on January 16, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, in the Morse Events Center at Northwest Christian College. She said the guest speaker for the community event would be Stedman Graham. City Manager Taylor thanked the council for allowing him to take time during the council’s break to visit his daughter in Paris, where she was working with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on global HIV/AIDS issues. He was impressed by the truly diverse work environment there, with people from around the world working together. He remarked that 2,000 years of urban mixed-use development were apparent as he traveled around the Paris metropolitan area. He thanked those who attended the State of the City event and noted that the document prepared by staff also contained the first quarterly report of progress on the council’s eight priority goals. He reminded councilors that the council retreat was scheduled for Friday, January 20, 2006. He reported that he met last week with McKenzie-Willamette representatives to review the memorandum of understanding and good progress was made. He hoped to have a memorandum of agreement for the Delta Ridge site before the council on either January 23 or 25. B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Development Update Mayor Piercy prefaced the item by stating she was pleased with the discussion of a possible West Broadway development and she viewed it as an opportunity for a revitalized downtown. She encouraged both the Opus Group and Conner and Woolley, as developers, to give the public the opportunity to learn about the proposal and ask questions. She volunteered to facilitate that process. City Manager Taylor said the council had been working for some time on ways to place downtown in a position to take advantage of a recovering economy and renewed optimism about what was possible in that area. He introduced Community Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan to present an overview and discuss conceptual elements of the West Broadway redevelopment proposal the City recently received. Mr. Sullivan reviewed the City’s recent downtown policy work, beginning with the downtown vision in 1999 that articulated the community’s ideas and aspirations for an active, vibrant downtown with an entertain- ment and cultural focus, successful retail nodes and commercial areas. The vision also expressed the importance of downtown as a civic gathering space and a place where people could live. He said the vision culminated in the Downtown Plan, adopted in 2004. He described a variety of recent and current downtown projects such as the Lane Transit District (LTD) Downtown Station, Eugene Public Library, Broadway Place, the opening of Broadway, the Aurora Building, the Tate Building, the federal courthouse and th WestTown on 8, all of which totaled $168 million in downtown investment in housing units, public infrastructure and public buildings. He said that still missing from the initiative was significant private investment in retail, market-rate housing, private office development and, until recently, a willing private developer. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Sullivan noted three projects that were in their final planning stages: the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) building, the Whole Foods project, and the Connor and Woolley/Opus proposal. He used an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the proposed Connor and Woolley/Opus project and said the three projects would go a long way toward completing the build-out of Broadway from west to east as a Great Street. Continuing, Mr. Sullivan stated that 67 percent of the ground floor space along the two blocks of Broadway between Charnelton Street and Willamette Street was vacant and other properties were under-utilized for the street’s potential. He said the building configurations and space sizes were challenging for redevelopment and re-tenanting and would likely require significant demolition. He said the $165 million Connor and Woolley/Opus proposal included 186,000 square feet of retail space, 100,000 square feet of office space, 288 housing units, a 1,600 seat cinema, 743 new parking spaces (455 public) and a hotel. He used a massing plan to illustrate the scale and location of buildings in the proposed development and pointed out that parking was embedded in each of the three new buildings. He said the proposal indicated a total need for 1,854 parking spaces and of that total over 1,100 were currently available in the public parking system; 743 new parking spaces were needed and they would be embedded in the new buildings. He said according to the proposal, 455 of the new spaces would be City-owned and presumably paid for by the City. He listed the outstanding issues: ? public parking – the amount to be provided, cost and financing issues ? potential amendments to the urban renewal plan ? assembly of private property Mr. Sullivan said the recommendation was for staff to continue working with Connor and Woolley/Opus to develop a more detailed proposal related to West Broadway for the council’s consideration. He said the proposal represented positive potential for realizing a fundamental step in the revitalization of downtown. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Ms. Bettman said she supported downtown housing and saw a role for the City in providing parking but was not certain she could endorse the concept of the proposal because it appeared to include use of eminent domain to consolidate properties, sale of the Atrium Building, national and regional retail stores, public subsidies, and unknown site plan options. She said the $165 million included the City’s investment and questioned at what point a subsidy was considered extraordinary and could not be justified. She noted that other developers and downtown property owners did not have access to the same kind of extraordinary subsidies and incentives that the Connor and Woolley/Opus proposal expected. She said that subsidizing one developer’s commercial and retail created an unlevel playing field and manipulated the free market. She said if the proposed motion included any type of endorsement to move forward with condemning local businesses, she could not support it. Ms. Taylor said she had the same reservations as Ms. Bettman. She asked why the developers did not just ask for a building permit like everyone else. Mr. Sullivan replied that there would be a point at which the developer would need to apply for building permits. He said the development would occur within the downtown urban renewal district and noted that the Downtown Plan encouraged incentives for certain types of development in the downtown core, including retail, mixed-use development, and housing, with parking specifically mentioned as a strategy for pursuing such development. He said the proposal represented a continuation of the work begun by the Downtown Plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Sullivan said the development would include the excavated site of the former Woolworth building. He said because the overall condition of West Broadway was so MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 4 Work Session poor in terms of use value, a comprehensive redevelopment proposal had more of a chance for success than redevelopment of a single property. Ms. Taylor asked if sale of the Atrium Building was the only possibility for obtaining a cinema. City Manager Taylor replied that was the most attractive in terms of the total concept of the developer’s proposal because of its proximity to the LTD Downtown Station as well as its compatibility with ground floor retail. Ms. Taylor asked if the developer expected a tax deferment. Mr. Sullivan said that would have to be worked out in the development agreement. If the developer was proposing the use of urban renewal financing for parking, urban renewal was based on taxes that were paid and those two issues would have to be balanced in the agreement. Ms. Taylor asked about low-cost housing. Mr. Sullivan said that the Aurora Building and soon to be th constructed WestTown on 8 project both included low-cost housing; the Connor and Woolley/Opus development would have market-rate housing, which was one of the goals expressed in the Downtown Plan. He said the proposal did not include an assumption of affordable housing. Ms. Taylor said she would not support eminent domain to take over businesses downtown that did not want to move and she had great doubts about selling the Atrium Building. She was not certain what the proposed motion entailed and was concerned that, in the past, the council thought it was taking action to continue considering something when it actually had voted on the issue. She was also concerned about how the proposal might affect the ORI project and asked if the development might include the former Sears site. Mr. Sullivan said that discussions between ORI staff and the developer had occurred but he was not aware of the nature of those discussions. Ms. Taylor asked if urban renewal funds would be used for the development. Mr. Sullivan said the supposition was that if the City was involved in parking development, urban renewal would be the principal source of financing. Mr. Pryor believed that downtown Eugene was in serious need of redevelopment and revitalization based on a 67 percent vacancy rate along Broadway and the type of structures and uses in the downtown core area. He said opportunities to partner with people who had the resources for that type of development did not come along every day; the developers were two local people who had lived in the area for many years and developed a number of local projects and would be working with another organization. He said the motion before the council would direct the city manager to work on developing a more detailed proposal and he did not see the concerns expressed by others. He thought the developers wanted to know if the City Council was willing to continue discussions about the project before proceeding further along with planning. He supported continued efforts to develop a mutually beneficial agreement. Mr. Kelly saw two separate issues: whether the project was beneficial for downtown and what level of City government participation was appropriate. He found the proposal had exciting potential for downtown and, while there were many positive things occurring in downtown at the present time, the proposal could take that to a new level. He liked the proposal’s housing aspect, as well as the mix of retail that included local retail and a downtown cinema. He said he understood that before more time and money were spent on the proposal staff and the developer wanted to know if it was generally perceived as positive. He said the motion offered no guarantee to the developer about the exact nature of the agreement and proposal, or the council’s reaction to it. He stated that the motion in no way endorsed the proposal; it simply allowed staff to spend further resources developing a more detailed agreement. City Manager Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly’s understanding of the motion and said the details could also entail revisiting the urban renewal district if that was one of the financing tools. He said that in order for the proposal to be reviewed by the council it MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 5 Work Session had to meet a basic public/private participation ratio of one-to-five. He said attractive features included bringing in significant retail in a coordinated way while providing for housing and related parking. th Mr. Kelly appreciated the inclusion of a parking analysis to confirm the need but asked why the 10 Avenue and Pearl Street public parking facility was not factored into the office use need. Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments and the points raised by Mr. Kelly. He said that the downtown area had been in decline for decades, although some notable efforts were made over the years. He said the City should take advantage of the opportunity to revitalize downtown. He said the council had shown the will to reopen Broadway and the next leap would take significant courage because of the risks and City investment that would be involved. He hoped the council would move forward with direction to staff to work with the developer. He said there was considerable risk involved in using eminent domain to buy property and turn it over to a specific developer, based on a recent Supreme Court case. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the proposal was an opportunity waiting to happen. She said it took her breath away because it would change the face of Eugene and the change would be huge. She said she needed much more information on the implications of the proposal and was not certain she wanted to be a part of that change happening, although she would support the motion for staff continuing to develop an agreement. She was not certain how she would ultimately vote on the proposal as she had been contacted by several small business owners who were very concerned. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asserted that the condition of West Broadway was misrepresented as the 67 percent vacancy rate included property owned by Connor and Woolley and she had heard anecdotally that earlier interest in redevelopment by others had been turned down. She said that Connor and Woolley had the ability to manipulate the vacancy rate on that section of Broadway. Referring to demolition, she asked if the developer envisioned phasing the project and if there was a possibility that buildings would be demolished and the sites left vacant for a number of years. Mr. Sullivan replied that only the housing portion of the project had been mentioned for phasing. He said all of the retail would need to occur at once and that meant the first floor would need to be constructed and tenanted, providing complete coverage for the site. He thought a majority, if not all, of the housing would have to be built at once as well. Ms. Bettman noted that the proposal indicated housing might be built later, depending on the market. Mr. Sullivan said the introduction of condominiums caused staff and others some concern; the proposal indicated that initial housing units would be condos and other housing units would be constructed initially as rentals, then converted to condos over time. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a possibility that no housing would be included in the project. Mr. Sullivan said that would be covered in the development agreement and part of the terms of any City involvement; approval of the agreement would be a council decision. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that buildings would be demolished and replaced with surface area parking lots. With regard to the issue of subsidies and the urban renewal district, she commented that the type of retail proposed would result in low-wage jobs. Mr. Kelly declared that it was very important to tie incentives to specific aspects of the project, such as a housing guarantee as part of the development agreement. He thought there was an appropriate role for the City to provide public parking as it would also allow the City to control the rates and policies. He noted the potential for development of public parking on the east end of downtown and asked how that would impact MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 6 Work Session the urban renewal dollars. Mr. Sullivan replied that there were two urban renewal districts and the projects would be in different districts. Mr. Kelly said he was a long way from using eminent domain to support the project and wanted to see the City act as a facilitator and work with the current owners and developer to achieve a “win-win” situation without the need for eminent domain. He wanted to see that arrangement addressed in writing. Ms. Taylor asserted that 25 years ago the downtown area was thriving. She asked how much of the Broadway Place retail space was empty. Mr. Sullivan replied that historically the retail space on Lincoln Street experienced difficulty but the other spaces were filled, although there was some attrition. Ms. Taylor asked what made staff think that the new space would be filled, considering the difficulty in filling Broadway Place space. Mr. Sullivan replied that the Opus Development business plan was to create a critical mass of retail that had a magnetic character and was a destination. He said the critical mass of development would create a destination that did not currently exist in downtown and draw people who might otherwise go to a suburban mall. Ms. Taylor said she had heard the development described as a “theme park.” Mr. Sullivan said that developer would need to work with Eugene’s existing historic street grid and the City would need to see a building type that would endure, not a building type that would go out of fashion. He said the City was looking for an urban form, not a Disneyland. Ms. Taylor asked what changes to the urban renewal district would be needed. Mr. Sullivan responded that the district’s boundaries, plan and policies would not need to be changed, but the total indebtedness would be revised. He said the issue was very complex and required a separate work session to address in detail. Ms. Taylor asked to what extent the public would be involved in the City’s adoption of a development proposal. Mr. Sullivan said that any changes to the urban renewal plan provided an opportunity for public involvement. City Manager Taylor stated that a substantial project such as the proposed development deserved a community conversation and the developers would be encouraged to find useful ways to obtain public input beyond whatever was required as part of an urban renewal plan change. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the city manager to work with Connor and Woolley on developing a more detailed proposal related to West Broadway development to be brought back to the council. Speaking to the motion, Mr. Poling said he agreed with many of Mr. Pryor’s comments and Ms. Ortiz’s observation that the project would change the face of downtown Eugene. He commended Connor and Woolley/Opus for having a vision and felt that the project was appropriate for the downtown area. He noted that the current and previous councils had, through plans, urban renewal districts, incentives and visions, put the ground work in place for such a development. He strongly supported the motion to develop a more detailed proposal related to the West Broadway development for the council to consider. He thought that facilitated negotiations between the City and unwilling sellers could be a good alternative to eminent domain; but the City should retain eminent domain as a tool and carefully weigh the needs of the unwilling property owner against the rest of the community. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the discussion by ten min- utes. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman proposed a friendly amendment to add the following language: This motion in no way endorses the concepts of the proposal. Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the proposal indicated it was the developers’ expectation that the City would acquire all of the listed parcels and sell those parcels to the development team at no cost. She asked what was meant by “all of the listed parcels.” Mr. Sullivan said the development team was involved in discus- sions with all of the private property owners and had not provided a list of individual properties yet. He assumed that the statement meant those properties that the developers were unable to acquire. Ms. Bettman asked if amending the urban renewal district to increase indebtedness meant that the development proposal would consume all of the available funds. Mr. Sullivan replied there was very little room in the existing debt cap for the downtown urban renewal district. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that what was called “maximum indebtedness” in the urban renewal plan was really a spending cap and the library used most of the spending cap. He said it was the spending cap that would need to be increased. Ms. Bettman said that in terms of using eminent domain to achieve a public benefit, she questioned whether consolidating a huge chunk of downtown in the hands of one property owner was a public benefit. She said a diversity of ownership was a good thing. Mr. Papé agreed with the need for public input and said that if the council entered into a development agreement, it certainly had the right to define the type and extent of public input that would be part of the process. He said when the agreement came back to the council it should describe in detail the type of public process in general as well as the specific process for each phase of the project. He asked about the history of the Atrium Building’s ownership and whether it had seismic problems. Mr. Sullivan said the City purchased the Atrium Building in 1998 at a good price and had significant equity in the building, which represented a substantial amount of cash as a liquidated asset. Mr. Papé stated that he would not be in favor of subsidizing the project with a decreased sales price as had been done for other downtown developments. He said the City should receive market price for that asset if it was sold. Mr. Poling asked if the proposal language about the City acquiring listed parcels and selling them to the development team at cost meant the purchase price plus any legal fees if eminent domain was necessary. Mr. Sullivan said that staff assumed that “at cost” was a fully loaded cost that would include the costs of any acquisition process. Mr. Kelly remarked that he was also interested in a fair recovery for the Atrium Building and any discussion of its sale should take into account the fiscal impact of relocating staff to rented space. The motion as amended passed, 7:0; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. C. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Piercy called the Eugene City Council into executive session to discuss real estate negotiations pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660(2)(e). The council returned to work session at 7:20 p.m. and the meeting was adjourned. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 9 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 9, 2006–Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: BACKUP STORAGE: KYDec2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/11 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) _1/13 bf__ Reviewed/Returned by Staff _1/13 ky______ Returned to Minutes Recording _2/7 ky______ Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording _2/7 ky___ Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall January 9, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the January 9, 2006, regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy recognized Councilor Taylor. Councilor Taylor requested permission to change her vote on the earlier motion taken at the work session directing the City Manager to proceed with planning on a downtown development plan; councilors unanimously indicated by head nods that Councilor Taylor had their permission to change her vote. 1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to elect Councilor Solomon as President of the Eugene City Council for 2006. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to elect Councilor Ortiz as Vice President of the Eugene City Council for 2006. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Mark Rabinowitz , PO Box 5122, Eugene, offered the council what he termed a “haiku” regarding his view of current events in Eugene. His “haiku” questioned the need for the West Eugene Parkway, questioned the justification for Bus Rapid Transit, questioned the location of the local hospitals, questioned the mayor’s sustainable business initiative, questioned tax breaks for large developers, questioned Eugene’s reputation as an environmentally friendly town, questioned the use of eminent domain in downtown, suggested intersection th improvements on West 11 Avenue, called for a central hospital location, called for the elimination of billboards, called for the end of shopping at Wal-Mart, called for locally grown foods and community gardens, and called for support of local food stores. He urged the council to vote no on transnational subsidies and to work to build a farmers market on Broadway. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting Zachary Vishanoff , a resident of Patterson Street, offered the council the following Web site regarding Nike: www.nano.electromagnet.us. He spoke of a Planning Commission meeting he attended earlier that day, specifically the commission’s discussion of the Walnut Street Mixed-Use Task Force, whose meetings were apparently not being noticed to the public. He said the commission was having difficulty locating mixed-use development. Mr. Vishanoff said the basketball arena public forum had yet to occur, and his neighborhood park was proposed to be sold for development, which were two events that he asserted made residents fear infill. He said the interface between the basketball arena and the nearby mixed-use area was obvious, and the City should “level with the neighborhood” about that. He suggested the council allow itself to be educated by the community, or the mixed-use project would be doomed. Kimberly Gladden , a downtown resident, said she worked downtown and did not own a car so mostly patronized downtown businesses. She frequently walked down Broadway and saw many problems in the west end that development had only made worse. Now one had to walk through youth as opposed to around them, and the discarded cigarette butts littering the streets threatened business viability. Tour buses that blocked store fronts did not help. She said many societal problems existed in downtown and pushing youth from neighborhood to neighborhood accomplished nothing; the council had yet to address that. Multi- million dollar tax breaks for large companies did no good. She did not think Messrs. Connor and Wooley spent any time downtown or their properties would not look as they did. Parking was another problem; people did not want to walk from parking structures to the stores they wanted to visit. Her issues needed to be addressed or investment would do nothing at all. rd Ken Harren , 1261 West 3 Avenue, owned a retail store in downtown Eugene. He encouraged the council to place downtown at the top of its priority list. He said that downtowns represent the face of a community and was where government and culture happened. It should be the heart of the economy. People most often complained of a lack of critical mass of business, public safety, and parking. He said the solution was the responsibility of all but the City could lead the way, particularly with regard to parking, which he acknowledged was a difficult problem. He called Eugene a wonderful place waiting to happen and encouraged all to help Eugene realize itself. Walter Hunt , 2745 Spring Boulevard, said he worked in the McDonald Building downtown. He said the council’s work to date had already improved the downtown a great deal, and he cited the hanging baskets and statute of Ken Kesey as examples. He thanked those associated with the First Friday Artwalks. He called for a cleaner downtown, with more frequent sweeping. Mr. Hunt supported the Human Rights Commission’s recommendations related to homelessness and suggested they would help some of Eugene’s core problems. He asked the council to make maintenance and safety of the downtown core a priority. Tracy Joslen expressed appreciation for the many City and County programs that helped people who were in need. She spoke warmly of the dinner services provided by Saint Vincent de Paul soup kitchen in downtown, where she previously worked. Ms. Joslen said sleeping and eating were human rights. Those she encountered at the soup kitchen who managed to survive were amazing people. She said that the youth in downtown might be a problem but they were young and seeking a place to hang out, such as a youth center. She said the City needed to protect the homeless from the criminal element. Ms. Joslen invited the council to visit the soup kitchen and meet the good people who were served there. She advocated for a publicly run shelter for the homeless. th Eugene Drix , 740-1/2 East 14 Avenue, said Eugene’s problems were similar to those of other cities. He said Eugene merely needed a new focus. No one would know how a new focus would work. Eugene was unique, and if residents could work together they could succeed. He advocated for a new definition for MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting future generations, since not everyone had children. He said the homeless needed to be known by a new term that people felt more connected with. He asked those in attendance and those at home to think about the issue, and urged a home-grown solution. Lisa Dunn questioned how the City could justify trying to avoid liability for allowing Roger Magana to prey upon women for so long. She asked why City officials were not being charged for tampering and withhold- ing evidence, adding when other people break the law, they pay the penalty. Ms. Dunn asserted that she to move again because after more officers’ names came in the court case, the police parked in her driveway every night for 3-1/2 weeks. She asked why she should have to act in fear. Ms. Dunn said she had seen nothing productive being done for rape victims and the mentally ill as a result of Mayor Piercy’s election, in spite of promises she made. She had expected more change. She said she repeatedly asked for answers and never received one. Her daughter had been removed from her custody because the State believed she was too traumatized because of her exploitation by Roger Magana to raise her. After threatening suit, she was finally able to see her daughter on a regular basis. Ms. Dunn asked that something be done about predators on the streets, suggesting that failure to do so could result in vigilante actions. th Tom Watson , 1963 7 Avenue, questioned the lack of action by the City with regard to Ms. Dunn’s case. He maintained her continuing stress had been worsened by recent events, such as the City’s motion requesting a judge to rule the City had no liability in the Magana case, which the judge ruled against. He suggested that as the City contemplated the dollar amounts involved in settling the case, it would be in the City’s best interests to take care of Lisa Dunn. Mr. Watson suggested $3.3 million would be an appropriate settlement. He averred it would be appropriate for the City to offer counseling to Ms. Dunn. He believed that “damage control” was in order, and suggested to Mayor Piercy that “stepping out for Lisa Dunn” would be a popular thing for her to do. He suggested City Manager Dennis Taylor bore responsibility for the case, noting that City Manager Taylor stated to the council that the City “owned” the International City Managers Association/Police Executive Research Forum (ICMA/PERF) report. Mr. Watson asserted that in recently filed court documents, the City sought privacy for officers other than Lara and Magana who had sustained sexual complaints against them and who were still working for the City of Eugene. He called for a zero tolerance policy for the Police Department regarding sexual complaints. He questioned the council’s lack of action in that regard. He questioned whether the City had time to await the settlement of the lawsuits to hear the results of Police Chief Robert Lehner’s investigations, and called for action. He thought the City Council should take care of Ms. Dunn. Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, Eugene, said the council’s action to study the proposed large and dramatic downtown development was reasonable. He contrasted development in Europe with development in the United States and said that “snazzy, chain store” shopping experiences were common and asserted that retail approach had “run its course.” He suggested the council consider establishing criteria that would allow the development to proceed in a way that expressed Eugene. He suggested sustainability criteria, “walkability” criteria, and a requirement for local content. Mr. Matthews feared so much development in a single ownership could become generic. He said the council should demand staff produce a detailed analysis. If the council chose to use eminent domain, it should use it in the public interest. He asked how the use of eminent domain in this case compared to other uses in the public interest the council had not chosen to go forward with, such as the preservation of natural resources or locating a hospital in the core. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly thanked Ms. Joslen for her remarks and noted the council’s priority initiative regarding homelessness, saying translating that effort into positive change was a challenge. He expressed appreciation for the comments about downtown and the need for improved vitality and public safety. He said that downtown was currently a council priority and involved seeing a variety of efforts to completion. He welcomed suggestions. Councilor Kelly said that there had been a rise in public safety issues in recent months and expressed hope a task team was investigating that and that the council would hear a report in the future. City Manager Taylor said that the issue involved several agencies and staff was working on it. He could provide more information on short-term approaches. Councilor Kelly said he had no words to respond to Ms. Dunn and Mr. Watson’s comments. He acknowl- edged there were issues surrounding cases in process but there was also a human suffering element and he thought that should be carefully considered. Speaking to the comments of Mr. Matthews, Councilor Kelly invited the comments of Mr. Matthews and the public about suggestions for measurable criteria for a development agreement for privately owned property in downtown that would make it unique to Eugene. Councilor Ortiz thanked those in attendance and recognized the Marist High School class in attendance. Councilor Ortiz said that she was always distressed to hear from the victims of Magana/Lara and wanted to preserve the dignity of them to the degree possible. She acknowledged the council’s limitations under the charter in regard to the currently ongoing litigation and expressed the wish the council was privy to that information. Councilor Ortiz thanked Ms. Joslen for her remarks. Councilor Taylor was also touched by the remarks of Ms. Dunn and Mr. Watson and said she would like information about anything the City could do to assist Ms. Dunn. Councilor Taylor thanked those in attendance and noted those who spoke with regard to the need for a youth center downtown. She suggested that could be a good use for the Atrium building if the City decided to vacate it. She agreed with Ms. Joslen that youth needed a place to hang out. She agreed with Ms. Gladden that pushing youth around the community did not solve the problem and recalled the council’s passage of the th skateboard ordinance on 13 Avenue, which drove them downtown; the opening of the downtown streets that drove them to Monroe Park; and enforcement there that brought them back downtown. She hoped the council would think about opening a youth center with assistance from the State or University of Oregon. Councilor Bettman also thanked those in attendance, particularly the high school class. She asked whether urban renewal money could be used to offset the costs of providing additional public safety patrols and social services focused on the urban renewal district. She thought those were benefits to downtown. Councilor Bettman expressed her admiration of and appreciation to Ms. Dunn for coming forward again. She agreed with the remarks of Councilor Ortiz and said the issue re-emphasized the need for an external police auditor immediately. Ms. Dunn could be directed to the auditor as she was raising new allegations. Following a brief consultation with City Attorney Jerome Lidz, Councilor Bettman expressed her objection to the executive session held earlier in the evening. She said she objected to the process being employed and had deep concerns about whether what happened in that session had to occur in an executive session as opposed to a work session. She said she would not support condemnation of any downtown businesses in order to allow private developers to consolidate their properties. Many of the properties involved were the MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting sites of long-time local businesses and she did not agree with disposing of them for the convenience of a larger project. If the property owners of the involved properties wanted to maximize their investment when selling their properties, they had that right. Councilor Solomon also thanked those in attendance and in particular wished to recognize the seniors in the Advanced Placement Government Class at Marist High School. She noted her own attendance and graduation from Marist High School. She believed all councilors would agree an engaged citizenry was the City’s greatest asset. She asked the students not to hesitate to call if there was anything she could do to keep them engaged. Mayor Piercy suggested that the new citizen review board could also assist persons such as Ms. Dunn. Mayor Piercy agreed with Councilor Kelly about the value of hearing input from citizens regarding the proposed downtown development agreement criteria. Mayor Piercy also thanked the students from Marist High School for their attendance. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. Councilors Bettman, Kelly, and Papé noted that they had submitted corrections to the minutes earlier that day. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections to the minutes accepted. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. 4. ACTION: Resolution 1037 Acknowledging Receipt of the Annual Financial Report of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2005 City Manager Taylor noted that the independent auditor had given the City a clean audit both with regard to the general operating budget as well as the Urban Renewal Agency budget. Action to adopt the report must be made by resolution. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 1036, ac- knowledging receipt of the Annual Financial Report for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of Eugene City Council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Remanded Provisions of Appendix B to Ordinances Nos. 20325 and 20326; Amending Ordinances Nos. 20235 and 20236 by Adoption of a New Appendix B; Repealing Section 5 of Each Ordinance; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Attorney Lidz provided an overview of the remanded ordinance, reminding the council that in July 2004 it adopted two ordinances related to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) facilities and planning. The first ordinance amended the portions of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) related to public services and facilities, and the second ordinance amended the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). He said the textual changes made by both ordinances were the same, which was why it was possible to amend the two ordinances in question with a single new ordinance. Mr. Lidz noted the appeal of the ordinances adopted in July 2004 by the Lane County Home Builders Association to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which subsequently rejected most of the associa- tion’s argument but remanded the ordinances for a more detailed description of Project 300, described generally as the WPCF treatment project. LUBA also suggested two other projects be reexamined to determine if a more detailed description could be developed. Mr. Lidz said the ordinance before the council addressed the issues raised in the LUBA remand. Mr. Lidz referred the council to pages 141-142, 144-145, which reflected the revised text to be added to the Metro Plan and the PFSP. He emphasized that only the project descriptions, not the projects themselves, were being changed. Because there were no changes to the projects, the changes to the descriptions were based on the 2004 record. No new information or record was needed. The public hearing was not required by the LUBA remand or Oregon land use law; rather, the Eugene City Charter required the council to hold a public hearing before it adopted an ordinance. Mr. Lidz said the proposed ordinance would have an immediate effective date to allow the projects in question to proceed immediately. The projects were needed in order to meet the requirements of the City’s National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and other federal requirements. The projects would take years to build and had been delayed by the litigation. The land use amendments approved by the council were not effective because they could not be acknowledged by the State due to the litigation. Staff asked that the council amend the 2004 ordinances to remove the statement that the ordinances would not take effect until they were acknowledged, as the LUBA remand was sufficiently narrow for staff to believe the substance of the planning work had been completed. If the ordinance was appealed, the City would not have to delay the implementation of the projects. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Kevin Matthews , 1192 Lawrence Street, representing the Friends of Eugene, encouraged the council to adopt the ordinances before it. He spent the remainder of his time discussing what he perceived to be the politics behind the appeal. Mr. Matthews maintained that the Lane County Home Builders Association was operating a concerted campaign to “block, delay, wear down, and bully against” anything that cost its members money. The association actively worked against City policies calling for new development to pay the incremental cost of its impact. Mr. Matthews considered the appeal an example of that. He invited the association to engage more constructively with the City. He thought if the City and association could work on something “bigger than the fifth decimal place of the bottom line of the profit of the home building companies,” there could be bigger improvements in the “first and second decimal place of those profits.” Mr. Matthews asked the council to consider the issue when it considers the impacts of the proposed Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan on the parks systems development charge. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She called for comments and questions from the council. Councilor Bettman referred to Project 300 and asked if any of the new descriptions broadened the projects that might fall under those categories. She asked for reassurance that the City was not creating a situation where a Coburg wastewater connection could occur through the amendment process before the council. Mr. Lidz said there was nothing in the additional specifications for Project 300 that broadened it to that degree. Peter Ruffier, Wastewater Manager, concurred with the remarks of Mr. Lidz. Councilor Poling asked if the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners had to take similar actions. Mr. Lidz said yes. Susie Smith, MWMC General Manager, said the Springfield council had a public hearing scheduled for January 17; the Board of County Commissioners placed it on its January 23 agenda. Barring any action that extended the public hearings, staff requested Springfield take action on January 17 with an immediate effective date. Staff also requested the same of Lane County. Councilor Poling asked if there was benefit to taking action tonight as opposed to waiting until January 23. Ms. Smith said staff attempted to schedule such issues as soon as possible and hoped to see action as soon as possible so that the needed projects could go forward. She said it not be a problem if Eugene and Springfield took action on the same date. Mr. Lidz said the council could take action with unanimous consent. Councilor Poling wanted to take action in the hopes that Springfield and Lane County would be spurred to take action soon. He said the projects that were needed were in some instances needed now to both comply with federal regulations and upgrade the plant. Those upgrades were needed as soon as possible. Mayor Piercy determined that the council did not object to taking action at that time. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt Council Bill 4915. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: Interim Appointment to Human Rights Commission Councilor Solomon noted the memorandum forwarded by the Human Rights Commission recommending Paloma Reza, one of the five candidates who had applied for the position. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Paloma Reza to Posi- tion 3 on the Human Rights Commission for an interim appointment to serve the unexpired term of Judith Castro for a term beginning on January 9, 2006, and ending on October 31, 2007. Responding to a question from Councilor Papé, Ms. Walston said the process was dictated by the City Code; however, the council had interviewed most of the candidates now being considered at some time in the past. Councilor Papé wanted to reexamine the process as he did not think it was fair. He indicated he could not support the motion. Councilor Kelly explained to Councilor Papé the process laid out in code, and noted the commission’s unique committee structure. He said the commission’s committee structure created a sort of “farm team” for the commission and helped the commission fill interim vacancies with candidates with experience in the Human Rights Program. He thought that made sense, noting that staff actively encouraged those inter- MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting viewed by the council and not appointed to participate in the committee system. He strongly supported Ms. Reza’s candidacy. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the motion to appoint Ste- ven Smith to Position 3 on the Human Rights Commission. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Papé, Solomon, and Poling vot- ing yes; councilors Kelly, Bettman, Ortiz, and Pryor voting yes; Mayor Piercy voted to support the nominee of the Human Rights Commission, and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Papé voting no. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council Work Session Date Needed for Mail out: _________________ DATE OF MEETING: January 18, 20006 TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Joyce Ogden MINUTES FILE NAME: BACKUP STORAGE: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 01/25 jo _____ Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) _1/22 bf__ Reviewed by Staff and Returned to Minutes Recording Office (Date & Initials) _1/22 ky___ Received by Minutes Recording Office (Date & Initials) 1/22 ky__ Revised Draft Proofed/Revised (Date & Initials) 2/7 ky_ Final Printed and Sent to Staff By COURIER, E-MAIL, FAX, OTHER (Date & Initials) (Circle Method of Transmittal) Approved Minutes Amendments Incorporated and Sent to Staff (Date & Initials) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall January 18, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pape?, George Poling, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting a New Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss provided an overview of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and announced the following events that would ensue if council approval was granted on the PROS Comprehensive Plan. ? A discussion of a potential bond measure for the November 2006 election for the above proposed ordinance would be presented to the City Council in February. ? A discussion of the proposed Project and Priority Plan would be presented to the City Council on February 27. ? A public hearing was scheduled for March 13. ? Action on the Project and Priority Plan was scheduled for April 10. Ms. Weiss reported that a fair amount of oral and written testimony was received at the December 12 public hearing on the plan and she noted that staff addressed the concerns raised in those testimonies in Attachment B in the AIS. She pointed to two specific issues: (1) Concern over the removal of the project list from the proposed plan . Ms. Weiss explained that State statute does not require a project list to be a land use document and therefore the City was consistent with State law. Additionally, she pointed out that it was in the interest of the council to allow the project list to be a living document so that as the environment and/or community priorities evolve and funding opportunities arise, the list could be amended without the need to go through the expensive and timely land use amendment process. In contrast, Ms. Weiss noted that if the project list was adopted as a council resolution, the process to amend the list would be radically shortened to a 30- to 60-day process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session (2) Lack of Parks, Recreation and Open Space Services in Santa Clara. Ms. Weiss opined that much of the testimony presented on this issue was based on Table B.2 in the plan; however, she explained that the table provides a baseline inventory of the existing services throughout the entire City, Additionally, it broke the inventory down by planning area. She stressed that it was not the intent of the table to be a forecast of service provision to the Santa Clara area. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman said she did not oppose the adoption of a project list. She said she would oppose a process whereby the plan was adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan and shaped as policies rather than strategies. Ms. Bettman expressed regret that the PROS Committee did not review the policies that would be vacated due to an appeal of the 1989 Plan; however, she recognized that many of the values would be covered as pointed out by staff. Ms. Bettman spoke to the systems development charges (SDCs) and pointed out that the last Parks, Recreation and Open Space bond measure paid for a significant amount of new capacity to accommodate new growth; therefore, a new list was necessary to recover some of the cost of that new capacity. She stated she supported Option B in the AIS which repeals the 1989 plan and provides for a resolution that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bettman voiced concern about fulfilling the Metro Plan policy to develop a system of regional metropolitan areas by encouraging the development of private recreational facilities. She stressed that she does not support “privatization” as a City policy and therefore opined that a resolution was the prudent step for the council to take. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman urged staff to review its website as there were many obstacles to reach the project list and it was not readily accessible with references. She requested that it also be prioritized. Mr. Pryor complimented staff on an excellent plan. However, he voiced concern over unanswered issues that remain. Mr. Pryor opined that if the plan was adopted with the issues unresolved, the community would perceive that it has not been heard. He pointed out that there was an “artificial” pressure to adopt the plan in order to meet the bond measure timeline. Mr. Pryor revealed that some members of the Planning Commission said they approved the proposed ordinance reluctantly and would have preferred to spend more time on this project. He noted that the commission was under the false impression it had to act in an expedient manner to meet the bond measure timeline. Mr. Pryor turned to the concerns of the community regarding the project list and pointed out that it was possible to have a plan with a project list and he would rather discuss the list prior to the adoption of the plan. He opined that a plan without a project list was all vision and no substance. In conclusion, Mr. Pryor encouraged the council to create a strategy which allows the process to move more slowly and thoughtfully. Mr. Pape? questioned the difference between what was aspirational and what flows in policy and said he was hesitant to move forward until that question could be fully clarified. Specifically, he spoke to the Santa Clara component and pointed out that the council has not completed projects for that area which were approved 20 years ago. He voiced doubt that the proposed ordinance would assist in that regard. Additionally, Mr. Pape? voiced concern that land use specialists cautioned the City not to move forward without a project list, as legal consequences could ensue. City Attorney Jerome Lidz clarified there was nothing unlawful about incorporating a project list into the PROS Plan; however, he pointed out that it clearly would not be unlawful to separate the two documents. Mr. Lidz said he would be willing to pursue the concerns as expressed by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape?; however, he voiced support for the plan as a stand-alone document. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly pointed out that the proposed schedule for the project list to be adopted was April. He reminded the council that if the plan was adopted as a refinement plan, then opportunities for new parks in the future that were not now on the list would be subject to a six-month land use process to change the plan. On the other hand, Mr. Kelly reiterated Ms. Weiss’s statement that if the plan was adopted by council resolution, concerns about timelines to modify become moot. He suggested that Option B may resolve some of the concerns raised by council members. City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton countered that adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a resolution does not make the document easily amendable. She explained it would still have the land use timeline added to it. She clarified that if the plan was not adopted as a refinement plan, the land use amendment process must still be adhered to. Mr. Kelly commented that it was his understanding that the council could either adopt the plan as a stand-alone document or as land use document. Ms. Brotherton reiterated that the plan could be adopted as a stand-alone document or as a refinement plan; however, the stand-alone PROS Comprehensive Plan would be considered a land use decision. The stand-alone project list would not be a land use decision. Ms. Solomon opined there would be a lack of accountability in the plan without a project list. She also voiced concern that the inventory included in the plan does not encompass all of the other providers of recreational facilities in Eugene and therefore sets a bad premise to conduct a public campaign for a bond measure. Finally, she pointed out that the Friends of Eugene, the Santa Clara residents, and the Lane County Homebuilders Association all voiced concern about the plan as proposed. She urged the council to reevaluate the proposal. Mr. Poling voiced appreciation to staff for its efforts; however, he concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments and additionally pointed to his experience as a member of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). He explained that group approved a 20-year facility plan that did not include a project list and ultimately was informed the project list must be included. He spoke to Option B and pointed out that in order to alter the resolution, public hearings must be held. Mr. Poling then spoke to the issue of the proposed additional 1,300 acres and questioned how they would impact the buildable land supply. Mr. Lidz clarified that with regard to the MWMC issue, LUBA did return the Public Facilities and Services Plan to the MWMC for additional detail; however, the Facilities Plan, which was adopted as a stand-alone document by the commission, was approved by LUBA. Ms. Taylor stated that the bond measure should move forward in the November election and asked if the ordinance must be adopted for that process to be put before the voters. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson responded that the ordinance as proposed would not need to be adopted. He then referred to the work session on election sequencing and noted that the council asked for a limited bond measure possibility in 2006 and directed staff to present opportunities for land acquisitions or other projects which did not have significant operating costs. Mr. Carlson added that it was not intended for a bond measure to be driven by the implementation of the plan. Ms. Taylor opined that the project list should be a separate document; however, she questioned how a resolution to adopt the plan would impact the process. Ms. Brotherton reiterated that if the council approves Option B, it was adopting the plan by resolution as a stand-alone document and it continued to be a land use decision. She explained there would not be any legal force with regard to the strategies as it would be an aspirational document. Ms. Brotherton opined there would not be any advantages to adopt the document by resolution. She then spoke to the project list and said that if the council adopts the list separately, that action ensures that the City could respond to changing community needs. Mr. Lidz added that if council adopts the plan by ordinance, it would become part of the City Code. In response to a final question posed by Ms. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Taylor, Ms. Weiss opined that if the 1989 Plan was not repealed, it would not reflect all the work that has gone into the planning document over the past three years; however, she conceded that it would not harm the City to retain it for a short period of time. Ms. Ortiz complimented staff on the product it created and said she supported Option B after hearing the concerns expressed by council members. City Manager Taylor encouraged the council to adopt the plan and opined that there was value in the proposal to adopt the projects list as a separate document. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to split the proposed ordinance into two documents: 1) an ordinance that repeals the 1989 plan; and, 2) a resolution that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a stand-alone internal document, i.e., not as a refinement to the Metro Plan. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Ms. Bettman opined it was not appropriate for the council to call for a bond measure until at least 2010, as there were other higher priorities that need to be addressed in the interim. However, she reiterated that she was motivated to have a project list in place in order to recover the costs of increasing the capacity of Eugene parks to serve new development. In terms of the project list, Ms. Bettman pointed out there was a document created by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee that would serve the council as it reviewed the list. She asked staff to provide the council with that information. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor replied that the resolution under discussion could be brought back to the council in early February. Ms. Bettman encouraged staff to allow adequate time for responses to Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape?’s questions. She pointed out that the issue of the 1,300 acres of residential land would be made on a case-by-case basis. She explained that properties not owned by the City were vetted through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, followed by Budget Committee and City Council scrutiny. Mr. Pryor questioned how the Metro Plan would be affected if Option B moved forward. Mr. Lidz replied there would be no direct effect to the Metro Plan. Mr. Carlson added that the existing policies in the Metro Plan would not change; however, Option B would change the way the City addresses “Goal 8” from the 1989 plan to the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pryor stated he could support Option B with the understanding that a project list must be clearly linked to the overall process. Mr. Kelly stated he would support the motion and requested that staff provide a specific outreach to the Friends of Eugene to address its concerns in a timely manner. He then spoke to the issue of the 1,300 acres, noting that they would come in as large community and metropolitan parks, although there was not much land currently in City ownership with public land zoning available for such parks. Mr. Kelly stated that questions of impact to goals could most appropriately be raised during the land use process. Mr. Pape? questioned if most cities adopt a parks plan as part of a comprehensive plan. Ms. Brotherton said she would research that question and advise the council accordingly. She added, however, that the manner in which the City addressed refinement plans was unique and surmised that most municipalities do not adopt park plans as refinements to a comprehensive plan. Mr. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Pape? asked if the City would be changing the manner in which it treated refinement plans if Option B was adopted. Ms. Brotherton explained that refinement plans had a regulatory effect and the plan under discussion was not amenable to such effect; therefore, it was not a “good fit” for a refinement plan. Mr. Pape? opined that if Option B moved forward, policies and consistencies must be established. Ms. Brotherton explained that if Option B was approved, the plan would be amended by resolution and would continue to follow the land use process; therefore, opportunities to speak to the resolution would ensue as it implemented Goal 8. She added that if the resolution was appealed, the City would defend it at the Land Use Board of Appeals. In response to a final question from Mr. Pape?, Ms. Weiss responded that the project list was separated from the plan prior to the Planning Commission’s review and following the meetings of the Mayor’s advisory committee. Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin stated a committee meeting was held in July at which time the members were advised of the decision to separate the project list. Mr. Lidz clarified that from a legal point of view, whether the plan were to be adopted as a free- standing document or as a refinement to the Metro Plan, either action would be less significant than separating the project list from the plan. The motion passed 6:2, with Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. B. UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE 20-106 (Police Auditor) Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston provided an overview of the AIS. She pointed out there was a coordinated effort to shape the recommendations for the council’s review and recognized the efforts of the Police Commission, chaired by Tim Laue, and the Auditor Recruitment Recommendations Team (ARRT), chaired by Senator Floyd Prozanski. She noted that ARRT crafted the job description, candidate profile, and recruitment options which were ultimately approved by the full commission. Ms. Walston referred to page 89 of the AIS and noted that the City Charter language included there was incorrect; the corrected language was inserted on page 96 and in the memorandum forwarded to the council by the Police Commission. Ms. Walston spoke to the decisions before the council and specifically referred to the timelines and the budget components. She explained that the Fiscal Year 2007 budget was being prepared and included funds for one-time start-up costs for the auditor and staff, as well as ongoing operational funds. However, Ms. Walston pointed out that there were no funds for the auditor recruitment and selection process in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget. She encouraged the council to make a decision on that issue as soon as possible, as well as on the recruitment/selection process. She asked if the council wished to be directly involved in the recruitment process and pointed out that the Police Commission articulated suggested options for this process. Ms. Walston noted the formal recommendation made by staff to appoint a subcommittee to assist with the recruitment process. The council proceeded to move forward with motions to begin the independent police auditor process as approved by the voters in November 2005. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to develop and implement necessary plans and processes, a well as budgetary authority to hire an independent police auditor as outlined in Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter. Mr. Kelly thanked the Police Commission and ARRT for their exemplary efforts. He voiced support for the voters’ decision in November 2005. Mr. Kelly noted that budgetary requests for the recruitment process would be brought before the council on a contingency basis. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, City Manager Taylor reiterated there were no funds allocated for the recruitment process in the current budget and there were approximately $45,000 in citywide contingency funds. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to develop and implement necessary plans and processes to recruit, select and appoint a citizen review board as outlined in Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter. Ms. Bettman requested that staff refer to the board as a civilian review board as recommended by the Police Commission, pointing out that there were members of the community who were not, in fact, citizens. She expressed hope that as the process moved forward it continued to include the community as it provided valuable input throughout the Police Commission’s review of oversight. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kelly presented a substitute motion to the one included in the AIS which was accepted and moved by Ms. Solomon below. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to appoint the Mayor, Council President, Council Vice President, and Police Commission Chair Tim Laue to an ad hoc committee to develop a timeline and plan for recruitment and selection of the auditor; to finalize the job description and candidate profile for the auditor; and to make recommendations regarding recruitment processes. The committee’s recommendations would be brought to the City Council for final approval. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Mr. Kelly opined it would be appropriate to utilize an ad hoc committee to assist the council in the recruitment/selection process. He said he would give deference to that committee to shape recommendations for the council’s review, which he suggested be completed within a six-week period due to critical timelines. Mr. Kelly opined that a professional recruiter would not be necessary for this process, pointing out that the position was well-defined and the Police Commission and/or Human Resources staff, with their expertise, could certainly assist with applicable marketing of the position. Mr. Poling pointed out that Mr. Kelly’s motion adds the Police Commission chair to the ad hoc committee which gives a slight advantage to the commission. He said while he respected the opinions of the commission chair, he was concerned about a possible imbalance on the committee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pape? reinforced Mr. Kelly’s comments with regard to the critical timeline that needs to be recognized in order for the auditor to be in place by July 1, 2006. He asked if the Human Resources staff could be utilized to develop the components of a recruitment and selection process. City Manager Taylor replied that staff stood ready to assist in whatever manner the City Council deemed appropriate. He said the City could be successful in its search through the utilization of a professional recruiter, or, through Human Resources staff; however, he pointed out that due to budgetary capacity, his preference would be to utilize in-house staff. Mr. Pape? concurred. Mr. Pape? then spoke to Mr. Poling’s concerns, and asked that progress reports be provided to the council on a regular basis. Ms. Bettman voiced support for the motion; however, she said her preference would have been for the tasks to be delegated to the ARRT, as it had already begun much of the preparatory work. Ms. Bettman referred to Mr. Poling’s concerns and stressed that the Police Commission and its chair were adamant that the success of the model was predicated on the creditability of the auditor; therefore, impartiality would be paramount to the success of the program. She added that the expertise the chair of the commission possesses could only move the process along in an expedient manner and she stressed that the council ultimately would make the final decisions. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman said that the amount of money allocated for a professional recruiter should be minimized and suggested that such an individual could take on the candidate search and present the applicants to Human Resources staff who could then do the screening process to ascertain minimum requirements. Additionally, she suggested that the community be included in the screening process prior to a presentation of a final list of candidates to the council. Ms. Taylor voiced opposition to the inclusion of a professional recruiter for any part of the process. She then said she was unwilling to cede the authority of the council and that it should be involved in the screening of the applications. Ms. Taylor said that if the ad hoc committee’s role was limited to the components listed in the motion, she could support it, with the understanding that the council would make all final decisions, including the hire of the auditor. Ms. Solomon voiced preference for a professional recruiter. She opined that part of the reason voters determined there was a need for a police auditor was due to a breakdown in process in the Human Resources division. However, Ms. Solomon noted that she would not make a final decision on that component prior to discussions that would ensue at the ad hoc committee level. Ms. Ortiz voiced support for Mr. Laue’s inclusion on the ad hoc committee and said his participation would be invaluable to the process. She opined that council authority would not be compromised and said she looked forward to the entire council providing feedback to the committee as it moves through the process. With regard to the use of a professional recruiter, Ms. Ortiz pointed out that there were only a small number of individuals in this specialized field who were currently qualified for the position. Therefore, she voiced her preference for in-house staff to provide its assistance and expressed confidence in their ability to present qualified candidates to the council. Mayor Piercy commented that she looked forward to serving on the committee and moving the process forward. City Manager Taylor voiced support for the substitute motion presented by Mr. Kelly. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to review current policies and code language to determine if current language was in need of revision or expansion as they relate to the implementation of Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter. Mr. Kelly asked for clarification as to what the above motion would entail and how it related to the Police Commission’s adopted workplan, which speaks to this issue. Ms. Walston explained that the motion dovetailed with the commission’s workplan. She explained that Chapter 2 would need to be updated so that the Civilian Review Board would be identified and the Police Commission would be involved with this discussion. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Walston replied that the Police Commission and its staff would work in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office to ascertain what policies need to be revised. Ms. Bettman suggested that the Police Commission establish a subcommittee to review ordinances and craft a recommendation for the City Manager’s office. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council Date Needed for Mail out: _________________ DATE OF MEETING: January 23, 2006–Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060123m2.doc BACKUP STORAGE: Ruth #33 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 2/1/06rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 2/6 bf Reviewed by Staff and Returned to Minutes Recording Office (Date & Initials) 2/6 ky Received by Minutes Recording Office (Date & Initials) 2/7 ky Revised Draft Proofed/Revised (Date & Initials) 2/7 ky Final Printed and Sent to Staff By COURIER, E-MAIL, FAX, OTHER (Date & Initials) (Circle Method of Transmittal) Approved Minutes Amendments Incorporated and Sent to Staff (Date & Initials) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber—City Hall January 23, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the January 23, 2006, regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Joan Kleban , 966 Jackson Street, owner of a retail store in the downtown area, said she felt excited that there were new ideas and “new things happening” in regard to the downtown development proposed by Connor and Woolley. The fact that such development would be under one ownership created some anxiety for her, however. She thought the City should delve further into whether the developers would actually provide housing, as opposed to parking lots that the City would help to fund. She said it could be vital to provide some kind of funding for small business owners such as herself to have incentives to relocate in the downtown area. She felt it was a wonderful idea to look at development in the downtown area and that a good theater would be an asset. Jan Wilson , 1260 President Street, wished to speak about the City’s Web site. She said her work both as a public interest advocate and a general citizen required her to access the City Web site frequently. She stressed that she “almost never” was able to get what she wanted. She related that every time she visited the Web site, her computer locked up. She stated that she visited many city, county, and state agency Web sites in her work and did not have this experience with any of them. She explained that she would open a folder and by the time she paged down two pages, the computer would lock up and error messages would appear. She said once this happened she could not get back and would have to reboot the whole computer and start over. She stated that the Table of Contents for the Land Use Code had every single section of the code listed, but no matter which section a person would click on, they were given the entire 400 pages of Chapter 9. She found herself constantly calling staff. She related that she was part of the group that put together the Oregon League of Conservation Voters score card. She said she completed the County’s score card in three days, but because of extreme difficulty in accessing council minutes through the Web site she had been forced to come to the Eugene City Recorder’s Office and review hard copies of the minutes, page by page. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 1 Regular Session She called the new system tedious. She acknowledged that the City spent a lot of money on the upgrade, and asked the City to spend a little more to get it right. John Dotson , 2447 Canterbury Street, related that he and his wife felt that the River Road/Santa Clara Task Force did not want them at the meetings. He said they attended several meetings at which the Open Forum was at the beginning of the meeting, but after about the third meeting it changed from the beginning to the middle of the meeting. They surmised that this was so people would not show up to testify. He alleged that this had been confirmed to them by a task force member. He said that since then the Open Forum had been moved back to the beginning of the meeting and it was suggested to him and his wife that they come and speak, should they desire. He stated that while he did not wish to belittle the work of the task force, he thought there was a “wall of communication” that prevented information from flowing. Joshua Keim , 961 Almaden Street, addressed the possibility of the use of eminent domain and condemnation proceedings to “clear the way for a mall” in downtown Eugene. He was one of approximately a dozen property owners who could be subjected to these proceedings. He said his property holdings included 55 West Broadway, which housed his offices for his restaurant management company, and 64 th West 8 Avenue, where a new bar was scheduled to open later in the week. He underscored that he was a local employer of over 110 individuals. He thanked the City Council and Mayor Piercy for the time and energy they applied to the revitalization of downtown Eugene. He believed that the city of Eugene and its people would be better off if the discussion about the use of eminent domain was taken off the table immediately. He averred that the time and energy this division of interest would consume should be spent to do something positive, something that would be inclusive of all of the diverse businesses that were currently succeeding in that area. He declared that for over 200 years, the United States Constitution guaranteed the rights of property owners and protected their property from being taken and sold to another land owner. He said now, in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, the City Council opened itself up to the possibility of using this “very sharp and dangerous tool.” He did not believe the City should help manipulate the free marketplace. He opined that no one would want to start a business in an unstable environment where one’s investment could be taken away so easily. He asked what would be next and where it would end. He maintained that all prime real estate was at risk; a beach-front property, farmland, or an entire suburban neighborhood could become the next target of developers. He submitted his testimony in writing. David Sonnichsen , 2435 Skyline Boulevard, stated that the Citizens Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park had passed the following motion: “To protect the scenic views of the Willamette River Greenway which are essential to the natural and recreational values of the Whilamut Natural Area in Alton Baker Park, the Citizens Planning Committee recommends that no additional bridges crossing the Willamette River exceeding the existing total of five functioning bridges or their replacements be constructed within the riverside border of Alton Baker Park. This recommendation is also intended to preclude the modification of existing pedestrian bridges to carry motorized traffic.” The bridges referenced were the Ferry Street Bridge, the DeFazio, Autzen, and Knickerbocker pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and the Interstate 5 bridge. He recalled that Howard Buford, a well-known park advocate, arrived in Eugene on 1945 and was the first planning consultant for the former Central Lane Planning Council. He said Mr. Buford formerly worked for the National Park Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. He related that Mr. Buford envisioned a central park in Eugene. He read an editorial written in 1959 that likened the proposed park to the West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C. He thanked his fellow committee members for their work. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 2 Regular Session Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, reiterated his previously expressed concern regarding the basketball arena the University of Oregon planned to build. He felt there was not enough public discussion about it. He felt both the downtown discussion and the discussion about the basketball arena contained the possibility of eminent domain. He alleged that the arena would be a “no-bid contract.” He thought the back-up plan for the Williams’ Bakery site was a research facility. He felt the Fairmount Neighbors had a right to know what was being researched, as it could be a facility for Department of Defense research. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, asserted that the council and staff were “throwing around ideas” about shutting down viable businesses in the downtown area and called this wrong. She noted that those businesses had made it “through the worst times.” She felt the condemnation process was for the enrichment of private interests only. She maintained that Connor and Woolley contributed to the decline in the downtown area by buying buildings and leaving them vacant and being responsible for “that big, giant dangerous hole next to the Atrium building.” She opined that it would be wrong to give these developers the opportunity to use eminent domain, and especially wrong in the face of the City’s unwillingness to take eminent domain action on the Amazon Headwaters site in her neighborhood. She reiterated the benefits the Amazon Headwaters provided the community. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Papé requested a report from the Information Services Division on the City’s Web site. City Manager Taylor acknowledged that staff had received frequent complaints. He said the Web site provided a rich amount of information but was slower than before. He underscored that the intent was to make more information available faster. He felt it was something staff needed to spend some time on. Councilor Papé thanked Mr. Dotson for his testimony. He stressed that the River Road/Santa Clara Task Force did want to hear from citizens. He said there would be outreach at the public meeting scheduled for February 4 at the Madison Middle School. Councilor Kelly wanted to emphasize that if the City were to provide any assistance in the Connor and Woolley development in the form of parking, there would be a development agreement requiring housing, among other items. He said he would like to hear more from Ms. Kleban as to what sorts of incentives she would recommend to aid the location of small businesses in the downtown area. Councilor Kelly commented that Ms. Wilson’s voice “joined a chorus of constituents.” He said he received a number of complaints on the Web site. He thought it would take significant effort to improve it. In response to Mr. Keim’s comments, Councilor Kelly averred that the best solution and the one most likely to bring the City to an end that would enrich the entire downtown for the broad public would be for the City to take a role in facilitating discussions between the Connor and Woolley team and current business owners. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for testifying. She commented that it was a good suggestion to create incentives to assist small businesses but she questioned the wisdom of moving somewhere in the face of the potential threat of condemnation. She did not support the idea of the City taking a role as facilitator in negotiations between private property owners. She asserted that the mere presence of the City insinuated that the businesses would have to sell “or else.” She felt the odds did not favor small businesses when pitted against the City and a large developer. She thought people who conducted business in the downtown area and were loyal to that area for many years should have the right to continue to be business owners in that area and should not be pressured to sell. She advocated for the City pulling back from the negotiations and for letting the negotiations play out in the free market. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 3 Regular Session Councilor Taylor concurred with Councilor Bettman. She thought the use of eminent domain, if for the public good, was reasonable. She defined that public good as saving natural areas, habitat, and stream corridors. She opined that taking land from one business owner and giving it to another was a misuse of this law. She did not believe the City should help negotiate. She said if the council believed in free enterprise, it should let it be free. Councilor Kelly clarified that he had no intention of saying to business owners that they should “sell or else.” Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for coming to testify. She stated that the recent council decision was to pursue a “fact-finding path” in the downtown situation. She wanted to see what the options were. Mayor Piercy underscored that everyone was looking for a “win-win” solution in the downtown area. City Manager Taylor wished to clarify that no one wanted to return to development of a mall for the downtown area. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes -November 30, 2005, Work Session -December 12, 2005, Work Session -December 12, 2005, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Resolution 4857 Calling a Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Recreation District and from the Santa Clara Water District D. Appointments to Judicial Evaluation Committee Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly stated that he had submitted a correction to the minutes electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the correction, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 3.PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Used Merchandise Dealers, and Amending Sections 4.989 and 4.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Taylor asked Police Captain Elvia Williams to speak on the ordinance. Capt. Williams stated that the system currently in use was time-consuming. She reported that staff sent out for proposals for an electric system. After selecting a system, the Eugene Police Department tested it in shops as a pilot project and found it saved time and enabled the department to return more stolen goods faster. She requested that the City Council approve the ordinance change. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 4 Regular Session Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Tim Laue , 124 Spencer Creek Drive, spoke on behalf of the Police Commission. He stated that the commission had first been made aware of the pilot program in 2002. He said the ordinance would move the pilot program to permanent status. The Police Commission supported the change and urged the City Council to act affirmatively. He averred that this kind of innovation represented good government. He said it was efficient, addressed a real need, and freed up valuable resources to allow the performance of higher level investigative functions to help combat the dramatic increase in property crimes currently being experienced in all of Lane County. He declared the program to be cost-effective. He stated that it improved the ability of local police agencies to gather the type of information that could lead to the return of stolen property in the community. Star Wood , 2709 Willamette Street, explained that she and her husband were owner-operators of a buy-sell shop in south Eugene. She reported that they used the system for the last three years and were familiar with how it worked and its software. She said, though they had been technological neophytes, they found the system, the software, and the support from the staff to be outstanding. She declared it was easy to use. She felt it would pay for itself in the store’s ability to focus on the property they really did not want. She predicted it would continue to pay for itself. She thanked the council for taking a leadership role in addressing the implementation of the system. David Nelkin , 2472 Willamette Street, owner of Eugene Coin & Jewelry, in business on Willamette Street for 26 years, favored any ordinance that helped the police recover stolen property faster, prosecuted more criminals, and made second-hand dealers a partner in this effort. His concern lay in the funding of the cost of the program, an inherent lack of future limits on cost, and the sharing of proprietary business information. He said at the moment he used a paper system that was entirely free to him. He felt that instead of paying $300 or $400 per year to use the software, the City should provide the software gratis. He thought the trade-off of police time to collect the paper tickets for the time to do “real police work and catch criminals” warranted this. He noted that the City of Medford engaged in a similar system and supplied the software for free. He asked who would pay for the computer to use the software. He objected to the sharing of certain proprietary information, specifically how much he paid for items, unless the items were known to be stolen. He felt the City needed a system to reimburse dealers in their “helpful efforts.” He proposed that the City start a fund and mandate a fixed amount be charged per transaction to provide immediate reimbursement to dealers that were sold something stolen. He commented that at present, buying something stolen made the dealers another victim of the crime. He noted that restitution only came upon conviction of the criminal and whether they paid. In his experience this never happened. David Collingwood , 3107 Powder River Drive, manager of Jerry’s Home Improvement Center, stated that the store lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in stolen merchandise every year. He supported anything that would help recover the stolen goods and said the ordinance would be greatly appreciated if enacted. Mark Tobin , 1965 Patterson Street, #15, related that he benefited from the system in that his bicycle had been stolen and, through the system, returned. He said his bicycle was fairly expensive. He remarked that bicycle locks did not even stop thieves anymore. He opined that there was something wrong with a community that tacitly accepted the theft of bicycles in broad daylight. He conveyed his appreciation to the Police Department for the recovery of his bike. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for comments and questions from the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 5 Regular Session Councilor Bettman indicated her support for the ordinance. She asked staff to follow up on Mr. Nelkin’s concern regarding the sharing of proprietary information. She wondered why the purchase price would be useful information and whether it should be required. Detective Randy Berger responded that the purchase price had been beneficial as they experienced cases such as one in which a $6000 ring was sold for $10, which clearly indicated the seller did not know the value of the item. He noted that the ring was returned to the person from whom it had been stolen. Councilor Bettman asked what sorts of protection existed to keep the information confidential. Detective Berger stated that law enforcement only received information on the purchase transaction that the store made. He said there were no records, nor did they have access to information on the subsequent sale of that item. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Detective Berger stated that the purchase price was not required information on the hand-written forms, but some businesses reported it anyway. Councilor Solomon asked if the City would require all of the businesses to purchase the software. Detective Berger replied that there was no cost for the software. He said the only expense to the business would be incurred if the business did not currently have a computer and internet access as part of its business inventory. Councilor Solomon asked if Detective Berger received an email from George Wingard of Eugene Ebay regarding a system other than outsourcing to the current provider, BWI. Detective Berger responded that he had spoken with Mr. Wingard. He related that the system Mr. Wingard spoke of used text files, which would not integrate with the current records management system. He added that having 55 stores reporting things in text files would provide a wide variety of description differences which would present some difficulty in EPD’s efforts to identify stolen items. Councilor Solomon surmised that this would not be much different than handling the process by hand with a paper trail. Councilor Papé appreciated Mr. Nelkin’s comments as well. He shared some of the concern regarding the cost of the system to vendors. While he supported the use of this system, he wanted staff to come up with an option wherein the City “picked up the tab.” He also wondered if it was really necessary for store owners to report the price paid for an item. He asked if the system would fail if the price was not in the notated box. Detective Berger replied that it would not. He reiterated that the price did help police personnel to identify stolen items. Councilor Taylor extended her congratulations to the gentleman who recovered his bicycle. She called it shameful that the City was not able to pay more attention to the problem of stolen bicycles. She hoped there would be cameras outside of the library for security purposes. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that it was not ready to take action on this item. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning State Traffic Laws and Amending Section 5.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that every few years after the legislative session, the City had an opportunity to pass ordinances to align the City’s municipal code with enactments by the State Legislature. He stated that Court Operations Supervisor, Kristie Hammitt, was available to answer any questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 6 Regular Session Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to testify, she closed the public hearing. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that there were no objections to taking action. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4918, an ordinance concerning State traffic laws. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Offenses; Amending Section 4.710 and 4.940, of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor indicated that this ordinance was for the same purpose as the previous one. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak on the item, Mayor Piercy closed the hearing. Councilor Solomon asked what offenses the ordinance addressed. Ms. Hammitt explained that it expanded offenses involving telephonic harassment to include text messaging and voice messaging, while exempting debt collectors. She said the other ordinance had to do with fire control and clarified that media covering a fire were exempt from summons to assist in putting out the fire. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4917, an ordinance concerning offenses. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 6. ACTION: Air Cargo Project Application for ConnectOregon City Manager Taylor stated that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) asked that this grant application be forwarded to the full City Council for consideration. He asked Public Works Director Kurt Corey to speak to the essence of the grant application. Mr. Corey explained that the ConnectOregon project was a result of the 2005 Legislature, specifically the adoption of Senate Bill 71, which set aside an economic stimulus package funded through lottery bond proceeds for the purpose of enhancement of the statewide transportation system through connecting modes. He stated that it was limited to air, maritime, rail, and public transit funding. He related that staff reviewed the criteria and to the extent that the City was not engaged in transit or maritime activities, staff focused on the airport that the City of Eugene managed and supervised as well as the Eugene Depot. He said staff forwarded to the CCIGR for review and approval both a grant application for the Eugene Depot for purposes of passenger platform facility and transit circulation improvements and a second application to expand the air cargo service area at the Eugene Airport. He indicated that the CCIGR elected to forward the first grant but deferred the grant application for the air cargo area pending council review. He said the project totaled $5.5 million and the grant application was for 80 percent, or approximately $4.3 million, for the purpose of taxiway extension and expansion and cargo service area improvements primarily at the extreme south end of the Eugene Airport. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 7 Regular Session Councilor Kelly ascertained from Mr. Corey that the CCIGR forwarded a grant application for submittal for Amtrak Depot improvements. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Corey said the process suggested by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) was that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) would have an understanding of all of the projects that were going to be submitted. He understood that the projects would collectively be on the MPC agenda on February 9. Councilor Kelly wondered how this would mesh with the project submittal deadline. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser responded that the City did apply directly for the ConnectOregon grants and the MPC hearing was intended to provide a “blessing” from the MPC so that the projects would be looked upon favorably by the Oregon Transportation Commission. Councilor Pryor said upon reviewing the letters of support and the actual criteria for the grants he surmised that it looked very positive. He averred the impact on air and cargo service would be positive. As it was time-sensitive, he favored moving forward with the project at this meeting. Councilor Bettman asserted that policy required that this grant come before the council. She maintained that a good portion of the project was not contained in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and therefore had not been approved by the council, though it could be found in the Airport Master Plan. She felt the project was not a City Council priority. She declared that no other projects had been put forward to compete with it. Councilor Bettman asked where the funding was for schools. She likened using lottery funds for roads to borrowing on future earnings from gambling. She did not approve of spending economic development money on this project. Councilor Papé concurred with comments from Councilor Pryor. He felt Councilor Bettman’s comments were well-taken. He remarked that the cost of the warehouse seemed expensive. Mr. Corey responded that $148 per square foot was a realistic planning estimate at this time. Councilor Papé asked if the warehouse space would be rented out. Mr. Corey replied that renting parts of it was a possibility. Councilor Papé noted that the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce endorsed the project. He opined that the City of Springfield, as a jurisdictional partner in the Willamette Valley, should join the City of Eugene in the management and support of this airport. Councilor Solomon agreed with the latter comment. She perceived the grant application as a way to get tax dollars already paid to the State to potentially come back to the community. She averred that not pursuing this grant would “cheat the citizens.” Councilor Kelly recalled that the council approved the Airport Master Plan. He asked if the project as described in the application was essentially identical to what had been described in the plan. Airport Manager Bob Noble responded that the plan did identify the project, but did not identify a funding source. He added, in response to Councilor Papé, that renting some of the space to other entities was in the plan. He clarified that $148 per square foot was not just for a warehouse, as the structure would include restrooms and offices. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 8 Regular Session Councilor Kelly agreed with Councilor Bettman that the process should require that a proposal of this magnitude come before the council. Councilor Bettman said her biggest problem with the project was that it had not been considered among a range of competing projects. She opined that the airport had come up with what “they wanted to do” and found an avenue to get it done. Councilor Pryor acknowledged the procedural and philosophical process issues raised by his colleague. He hoped that future projects would come before the council in a way that was more effective. He said “being in a real world here today” he could not turn down several million dollars on a procedural or philosophical basis. He stressed the importance of getting the grant in for the funding to do this project. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to submit a ConnectOregon grant application for the air cargo project. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 9 Regular Session