Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 26, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2009, Work Session, April 8, 2009, Executive Session, April 13, 2009, Work Session, April 15, 2009, Work Session, and April 20, 2009, Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS A.April 8, 2009, Work Session B.April 8, 2009, Executive Session C.April 13, 2009, Work Session D.April 15, 2009, Work Session E.April 20, 2009, Public Hearing FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090526\S0905262A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 8, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka (via telephone), Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:01 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – FY10 Budget Strategies to Maintain Road Fund Service Levels Public Works Director Kurt Corey presented information regarding the current status of the City’s Road Operations Fund and proposed FY10 budget strategies to continue the City’s operations and maintenance (O&M) efforts. As part of his presentation, Mr. Corey briefly described the nature of the City’s O&M concerns. Referring to his statement from the agenda item summary materials submitted to the council, Mr. Corey noted that the Road Fund was currently facing an annual deficit of approximately $4 million and was, absent of any intervention, in danger of becoming insolvent by the fall of 2009. Mr. Corey commented that the current O&M funding gap was the result of a multitude of factors including a 15% reduction in revenues over the last five years and a 23% increase in the cost of providing services over the same period of time. Mr. Corey noted that the state gas tax, which had historically been the primary funding source for O&M funding, had been flat for more than 16 years and that the Lane County partnerships payments that had also partially funded O&M efforts, had been exhausted. He further noted that the O&M reserve funds would essentially be depleted in the current fiscal year and $4 million in ongoing new revenue would be required to stabilize the O&M portion of the Road Fund, with $2.8 million in new revenue required to close the FY10 budget gap. Mr. Corey recalled the input by the City Council during previous work sessions and noted that staff had been directed to consider one-time solutions in order to address the FY10 budget gap, to consider new revenue sources to address budget gaps beyond, and to avoid any service reductions to compensate for the current, and any future, Road Fund O&M budget gaps. Mr. Corey proceeded to review the strategies suggested by the council in their previous work session meetings as reflected in the agenda item summary materials. Mr. Corey noted that while the previous staff recommendation had been for the City to implement a 10% surcharge on solid waste hauler fees, the current recommendation to address the FY10 budget gap called for only a 5% surcharge in addition to a one-time transfer of funds from available stormwater/wastewater funds and local gas tax revenues. He added that the staff recommendation to address the budget gaps in the long-term would be to revisit the transportation utility fee based upon parking spaces. Mr. Corey briefly restated the rationales behind the recommended 5% garbage surcharge for the benefit of the council and reminded them that a previous subcommittee had determined that there existed a clear nexus between solid waste collection and the City’s transportation systems, and that a garbage surcharge would be consistent with similar MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 8, 2009 Page 1 Work Session charges to other local utilities-related businesses. He further noted that there already existed a billing/collection mechanism which would allow a surcharge to be implemented with very little administrative overhead. He summarized that the 5% solid waste hauler surcharge would ultimately result in an increase of approximately 98 cents per month to the average user and directed council members to the data regarding the garbage surcharge included as Attachment A in the agenda item summary materials. Ms. Solomon joined the meeting at 12:09 p.m. Mr. Corey briefly restated the rationales behind the recommended use of transferred funds from wastewa- ter/stormwater utility reserves as described in Attachment C of the agenda item summary materials. He noted that previous subcommittees had again determined that there existed a clear nexus between the City’s transportation systems and the City’s ability to provide effective wastewater/stormwater services. He noted that such transfers would be consistent with the O&M funding strategies of at least fifteen other Oregon cities. He again noted that the fund transfers would make use of existing billing systems, thereby minimizing administrative overhead costs, and that the one-time fund transfers would not result in wastewater/stormwater service fees. Mr. Corey noted that the next steps regarding the proposed strategies would include a public hearing regarding the draft ordinance language included as Attachments B and C in the agenda item summary materials. Mr. Corey describe d the elements of the draft ordinance for the benefit of the council. Mr. Corey expressed that while he had not ordinarily been in favor of using transfers of gas tax revenues to address the O&M budget gaps, he was now in favor of a one-time transfer of gas tax revenues in light of recent federal stimulus funding that had been made available to offset the transfer. Mr. Clark said that while it would be unwise to consider cutting back any City services in order to address the Road Fund’s O&M budget gap, he was not in favor of a solid waste hauler surcharge that would ultimately raise the public’s garbage bills. He further stated that while he supported the one-time transfer of gas tax revenue funds, the City should investigate a swap of reserve funds with Lane County similar to previous funding processes rather than instigating a transfer of wastewater/stormwater funds. Mr. Ruiz, responding to Mr. Clark’s comments, noted that while it might be possible to swap reserve funds with Lane County, it would be prohibitively difficult to do so as there were currently no funds that were not already committed in some way. Mr. Ruiz noted that in the council’s upcoming goal setting he would be recommending a series of community discussions regarding the budget prioritizations and the corresponding outcomes that the council specifically wanted to pursue. Mr. Clark felt that specific budget prioritizations would be a necessary first step in addressing the O&M Road Fund and any other budget gaps faced by the City of Eugene. He further suggested that the City discuss the possible use of the City’s real property assets to address budget gaps. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that any negative effects from the potential transfer of gas tax revenue funds would be offset by federal stimulus funding that was expected to be received. Mr. Poling opposed the solid waste hauler surcharge and noted that he might be willing to support such a measure only if it were opened up to include other types of large vehicles or if the revenues generated could be specifically directed to maintaining and improving only residential streets. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the transfer of wastewater/stormwater reserve funds would not adversely affect or displace any element of wastewater/stormwater services since only reserve funds would be transferred. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Poling’s earlier statements regarding the garbage hauler surcharge and similarly noted that MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 8, 2009 Page 2 Work Session she might be more supportive of the measure if it were opened up to include other types of large vehicles. Mr. Zelenka asked for a status update on the street utility fee that the council subcommittee had recently recommend- ed. Mr. Corey replied that staff had recently met with representatives from EWEB to discuss a street utility fee and that some of the people involved in that meeting had been concerned such a fee might add an additional line to EWEB utility bills. He noted that further discussions with EWEB and the City Council would be necessary to determine the feasibility of such a strategy. Mr. Zelenka said he was concerned that the strategies being discussed did not appear to be part of a comprehensive package of transportation funding solutions that he had moved forward as part of the Council Committee on Transportation Systems Funding (CCTSF). He further commented that absent a more comprehensive strategy he would be willing to support the short-term solutions being recommended. Mr. Zelenka, responding to earlier comments by Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz, noted from his work with the CCTSF that the nexus between garbage trucks and the City’s transportation system was unique in that garbage trucks were not restricted from traveling down residential streets as many other large vehicles were. Mr. Pryor was frustrated by the lack of options presented by staff as a result of their following the council’s direction and noted that, while difficult, it would be important to continue the conversation about the best ways in which to reprioritize the use of the City’s general fund. Ms. Taylor expressed that any funds to address the O&M budget gaps should come out of the City’s general fund, and felt that the garbage hauler surcharge represented an unfair and unduly burdensome business privilege fee and that certain people might choose to discontinue their garbage collection service rather than have their fees increased. She noted that she might be more in favor of the surcharge if single family residences could somehow be exempted or if the garbage haulers could be made to pay the cost of the surcharge without passing the costs along to their customers. Ms. Taylor worried that the solid waste hauler surcharge was being misunderstood as a new property tax by certain members of the public and noted that she had received several calls in that regard. Ms. Solomon concurred with Ms. Taylor that any funds to address the O&M budget gaps should come out of the City’s general fund and further supported Mr. Pryor’s comment that it would be important to continue the conversa- tion about the best ways in which to reprioritize the use of the City’s general fund. Ms. Solomon noted that she would not be in favor of any vehicle surcharge that might exempt certain portions of area school districts. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that the $500,000 for the Urban Forestry Program, listed in Attachment D under the summary of Road Fund services likely to be eliminated, was not the total funding for the Urban Forestry Program but rather represented the portion of the program devoted to street trees. Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Solomon, noted that the motion proposed by staff would only call for the re-purposing of wastewater/stormwater fees and not for any increases in those fees them- selves. He noted that there were no specific rate increases associated with staff’s recommendation. Ms. Solomon was skeptical that the re-purposing of wastewater/stormwater funds would not eventually lead to rate increases. Mr. Brown asked if it might be necessary to have conversations regarding the staff’s recommendations included as part of the City’s budget committee meetings also. He noted that he was inclined to support the staff recommenda- tions. Mr. Zelenka moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with implementation steps for a new 5% transportation surcharge on solid waste hauler revenues by scheduling public hearings and council action as appropriate to meet operational implementation timelines for FY10, to direct the City Manager to proceed with scheduling a public MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 8, 2009 Page 3 Work Session hearing and action on proposed code amendments to expand the use of stormwater and wastewater user fees for road- related purposes, and to bring back to the City Council within 30 days, a report and plan on how to proceed with the street utility fee concept. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with implementation steps for a new 5% transportation surcharge on solid waste hauler revenues by scheduling public hearings and council action as appropriate to meet operational implementation timelines for FY10, and to direct the City Manager to proceed with scheduling a public hearing and action on proposed code amendments to expand the use of stormwater and wastewater user fees for road-related purposes. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend the Eugene City Council work session meeting by an additional 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark expressed that it was important for the council to recognize that it had, with respect to the proposed garbage hauler surcharges, been focusing primarily on the effect of large garbage trucks on the city transportation systems. He further maintained that such recognition tended to overshadow the effect of the proposed surcharges on the public at large and that, as such, the surcharge was an unwise course of action. Mr. Clark noted that a more comprehensive package of transportation funding or a reprioritization of such funding was necessary to address the budget gaps faced by the O&M Road fund and agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s earlier comments in that regard. Mr. Zelenka felt that the budget crises faced by the Road Fund and other City divisions was likely to continue and that it would not be possible to address them using only the City’s general fund. He further commented that statistical data regarding the transportation system impact of large vehicles other than garbage trucks was very difficult to compile which was one of the primary reasons he had supported the garbage hauler surcharge. Mr. Pryor asked what the likeliest outcome would be if Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion were to fail. Mr. Corey responded that the failure of the motion would seem to indicate to staff that the council wished the staff to investigate the possibility of service reductions. Mr. Pryor wanted to keep the process and discussions moving forward with the staff recommendations and stated that he was willing to support them, especially with regard to the fund transfers from wastewater/stormwater reserves and the gas tax revenues. Ms. Taylor expressed that she would only be able to support the staff recommended motion if the garbage hauler surcharge fee were somehow made to last only one year. She further stated the need for the council to advocate for a countywide vehicle registration fee. Ms. Taylor moved to limit to one year the garbage hauler fee specified as part of the proposed ordinance revision to Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The motion passed 5:3; (Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session meeting of the City Council to an executive session at 12:55 p.m. and reconvened the work session at 1:25 p.m. Ms. Piercy began a discussion of possible dates regarding interviews for the police auditor position. The council members and staff discussed potential dates for the police auditor interviews. The council agreed to 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 12, 2009. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 8, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 8, 2009 Page 5 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 8, 2008 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka (via telephone), Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown. Mayor Kitty Piercy pursuant to ORS 192.6602(a), called an executive session of the Eugene City Council to consider the employment of a public officer, employee or staff member to order at 12:55 p.m. Ms. Piercy adjourned the executive session at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 8, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon April 13, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Clark would join the meeting at 6:35 p.m. to participate in the council’s discussion of a complaint against the Police Auditor. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Piercy reported that she had delivered the welcoming address at the conference of Oregon police chiefs. She met with Representative Peter DeFazio to discuss transportation land use planning and with youth from the New Roads program to discuss their issues and concerns. She participated in a round table with mayors from other local jurisdictions. Ms. Solomon attended a Human Services Commission subcommittee meeting on budget issues as the commis- sion moved into its budget cycle. Mr. Brown reported that he attended a meeting of the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) Economic Development subcommittee. Mr. Poling said the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) discussed HB 2865, related to collection of SDCs (system development charges) at time of occupancy but did not take a position. He wanted to support the legislation and would bring the matter up at the council’s regular meeting. Mr. Pryor reported on the Housing Policy Board meeting and the West Eugene EmX Extension Corridor Committee. The corridor committee had received a presentation by the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC). He said the WEC was making presentations throughout the metropolitan area and would be at the council’s April 27 meeting. He attended the police chief conference breakfast and commended Acting Police Chief Pete Kerns and Captain Steve Swenson for hosting the event. Ms. Ortiz attended meetings of the Civilian Review Board and Human Rights Commission and several open houses, including one for the improvement project on Elmira and Maple roads. She also attended a meeting sponsored by Lane County Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to discuss the biomass operation at Seneca. She described a presentation on the Neighborhood Empowerment Plan at the Whiteaker Community Council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor said it was great news that Lord Leebrick Theater had purchased a building downtown on Broadway. She received complaints on several items, including street assessments, which she felt were unjust, retaining blackberry bushes along Amazon Creek and the secret vote related to the Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka stated he attended a meeting of the Sustainability Commission and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He complimented the University of Oregon and the construction company building the new arena for respecting agreements with the neighborhood and minimizing the impact of construction activities. He said Lane County would receive approximately $6.5 million in federal economic stimulus funds and the MPC had identified priority road projects to receive funding. He said the MPC also received a presentation from the WEC, which was very interesting. Ms. Piercy commented that she joined Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken and Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson in issuing a press advisory about the collaboration of all three jurisdictions on economic development. She announced that the City of Eugene was recognized on Arbor Day for its urban forestry program. City Manager Jon Ruiz thanked Urban Forester Mark Snyder for his dedication to maintaining the City’s trees. He noted the WEC would make a presentation to the council on April 27 and the Budget Committee would meet on April 15 to discuss the General Fund deficit and financial forecasts. He announced that $250,000 in urban renewal loan funds for gap financing had enabled Kesey Enterprises to purchase the McDonald Theater building. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mike Sullivan, Community Development Division, explained that the gap financing came from the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program, which was funded as part of the urban renewal program. B. WORK SESSION: Local Economic Development Plan – Part 1 Mr. Ruiz said the City had a three-pronged approach for economic development: ? State and federal economic stimulus dollars ? A long-term view of the regional economy over the next 20 years ? City organization strategies for helping existing businesses and jobs Mr. Ruiz introduced Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir to discuss preliminary economic development concepts. He said a second work session would focus on those items of interest identified by the council and include recommendations for moving forward. Ms. Muir stated that national, state and local economic conditions had affected issuance of residential building permits, reducing the average number per month from 40 in 2006, to 14 in 2008. She said commercial and industrial permits were somewhat lower, but the value of those applications was high. She said a number of measures had been taken to alleviate the development process while preserving the council’s policies. Those included deferring fee increases, reducing turnaround time for permit reviews, using stimulus funds for road repair projects and making some services available on Saturdays. Ms. Muir reviewed agenda item summary Attachment E, Possible Local Stimulus Actions and Attachment F, Items for Council Discussion. She said symbols indicated whether the item had been implemented, was being explored administratively or reflected a policy issue that required direction from the council. She noted that the City would receive $370,000 in federal economic development funds and staff would present recommendations for use at the next work session. She asked the council for feedback on the items in Attachment F. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Piercy was pleased with the focus on local activities and urged that strategies include filters for wages, benefits and sustainability to assure consistency with City goals and policies. She said the public should be involved in discussions of strategies as consumers. She encouraged the council to clearly identify its vision for downtown to help guide developers. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of more flexible home occupation standards. Ms. Muir replied that greater flexibility could allow someone to operate a small-impact business from a home under certain guidelines, including those for parking. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Piercy’s suggestion to apply a sustainability screen to ideas. She pointed out that the downtown belonged to everyone, not just those who operated businesses there. She said alleys were an asset and aided pedestrians and bicyclists moving around in the downtown area. She did not want to offer tax breaks without clear benefits and reiterated her opposition to enterprise zones. She said the City should consider ways to collect taxes from everyone equitably, instead of giving more tax breaks. She pointed to the example of Hynix, which was provided incentives to locate in Eugene and then left. She preferred to assist local businesses. Ms. Muir said there were no policy items on the list to increase tax breaks. Mr. Pryor expressed interest in the concept of a business chain, which had been an asset during previous times of economic hardship. He also favored business loan programs. He appreciated the City’s efforts to find a balanced approach. He said it was important to help both small and large businesses. He noted that Hynix jobs paid well and had good benefits, and Hynix paid the largest property tax in the area for many years, which more than compensated for the incentives it received. Mr. Zelenka commended staff for the actions that had already been taken. He agreed with Ms. Piercy that any actions should have a synergy of goals and include jobs, sustainability, energy efficiency and long-term investments that would produce a good economic environment in the future. He noted that Eugene was 21 on a list of comparable communities from across the nation considered the best places for business and careers. Regarding Attachment F, Mr. Zelenka expressed concern with Item 9, related to sale of surplus City property. He said selling at a low point in the real estate market might not be an appropriate strategy. He also cautioned, regarding Item 13 related to general code amendment, against taking short-term actions that could have a long- term impact on the community’s livability. Mr. Poling declared that he could have a conflict of interest on issues regarding the airport because of his occupation and might need to recuse himself during those discussions. He said that the sale of City-owned property should not occur unless it was to the City’s advantage; a viable development project could provide that benefit, even if the sale price was somewhat lower than anticipated. Ms. Piercy was in favor of Item 4 related to use of City facilities as incubators for small business. She encouraged staff to also consider what types of activities would be likely to draw other business to the facility and the downtown area. She suggested that the University of Oregon, School of Business, might be a resource for the City. She pointed out that economic stimulus dollars could help initiate activities but were not sustainable in the long-term. Ms. Ortiz commented that she supported enterprise zones and urban renewal districts as tools that were used wisely to encourage economic development. She asked if there had been consideration of deferring fees until a property was sold. Ms. Muir said the City had a program that allowed an owner to finance system development charges (SDCs) and make payments over a period of ten years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz emphasized the importance of reflecting City values in the use of facilities for small business incubators and seeking business owners from diverse backgrounds. Ms. Solomon asked for an example of Item 3, completion of construction of capital projects to serve developa- ble lands. Ms. Muir said that could apply to development sites that were waiting for services to be extended before being available for use. She said extension of services would be based on the site meeting specific criteria. Mr. Poling said the fire station in City Hall was a good example of a vacant City facility that could be used for activities that would attract people to the downtown area. He commented that Springfield and Florence had both implemented programs to delay the payment of SDCs. Ms. Muir summarized that staff would explore ways to reflect City values in economic development strategies and prepare a package of recommendations to present to the council at its May 13 meeting. . CONSENT CALENDAR C A. Approval of City Council Minutes of January 27, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting; February 9, 2009, City Council Meeting; February 17, 2009, City Council Meeting; February 23, 2009, Work Session; February 25, 2009, Executive Session; March 2, 2009, Executive Ses- sion; March 2, 2009, Regular Meeting; and March 3, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Neighborhood Matching Grants D. Resolution 4969 Extending the Time for Conveyance of Property Concerning the Multiple- th Unit Property Tax Exemption for Property Located at 19 Avenue and Charnelton Street, Eugene, Oregon and Amending Resolution 4966 E. Adoption of Resolution 4968 Supporting Application for State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Matching Funds for Parks F. Initiation of Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting Code Amendments G. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 18, 2009 H. Interim Appointment to the Human Rights Commission Ms. Piercy noted that the discussion of the economic development plan had concluded earlier than expected and suggested taking up the Consent Calendar, pending Mr. Clark’s arrival. City Attorney Glenn Klein pointed out that the agenda for the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. indicated that if time permitted, action on the Consent Calendar could be taken at the work session. Mr. Ruiz added that items pulled from the Consent Calendar would be acted upon at the regular meeting. Ms. Solomon pulled Item E. Mr. Zelenka pulled items C and F. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, with the exception of items C, E and F. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor moved to proceed with the next item on the agenda. The motion died for lack of a second. The council took a short break. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 4 Work Session . WORK SESSION D Complaint Involving Police Auditor Mr. Clark arrived at 6:35 p.m. and Ms. Piercy reconvened the work session. Mr. Klein provided an overview of the process for handling complaints against employees of the council. He said the council had to determine if it had sufficient information to act on the complaint; if it determined there was sufficient information, the council could deliberate and take action or postpone action to a future council meeting. He said if the council determined that more information was needed, it would move to the full investigation step in the process and hire an independent investigator. He said the complaint alleged that photographs contained in the Internal Affairs (IA) database were released by the Police Auditor to a private attorney and the release of those photographs was improper and violated the confidentiality agreement. He said Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds had responded that she had released the photographs, but they were of the individual represented by the attorney, the photographs would have been discoverable in any event, and release of that kind of information was consistent with the way the police auditor’s office had acted since its inception. Ms. Ortiz did not want to spend any more funds on an investigation and did not believe it was necessary. She regretted that she had not had more specific information about the complaint at an earlier point in the process and felt it had received more attention than it required. She had hoped there would be an opportunity for Ms. Reynolds to respond directly to the council about the complaint without having to hire an attorney. She questioned whether Ms. Reynolds decided independently to release the photographs or had been taught that was an acceptable practice by the previous auditor. She said the practice of releasing information from the IA database should be stopped , and Ms. Reynolds should adhere to the confidentiality agreement. She wanted to return Ms. Reynolds to work and have a mediator work with Ms. Reynolds and Deputy Auditor Elizabeth Southworth to resolve outstanding issues to assure the office of the auditor operated smoothly until a new police auditor was hired. Ms. Piercy agreed the City should facilitate mediation between Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Southworth. Mr. Klein added that a member of the council and a city attorney with expertise in personnel matters should also speak with Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Southworth to clarify expectations and assure both parties understood obligations and concerns with respect to the aftermath of a whistle-blowing incident. Mr. Clark looked forward to a police auditor system that would operate smoothly and routinely, without so much controversy. He cited comments from a candidate for the auditor position that the job was to follow the law and go where it might lead, which was a good guide to handling the current situation. He agreed with many of Ms. Ortiz’s points, but felt the confidentiality agreement Ms. Reynolds had signed was an issue. He said the agreement prohibited the release of any information from the IA database for any reason. He asked Mr. Klein to read the relevant section of the confidentiality memorandum of agreement (MOU) and indicate whether that granted Ms. Reynolds the ability to make a decision to share certain types of information. Mr. Klein noted that the language was in the MOU signed by Ms. Reynolds in January 2009; it was not reflected in ordinance or statute. He read the following: “I agree that I will keep strictly confidential: any information observed or obtained from any local, state or federal criminal justice systems, electronic patient health information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, confidential personnel records, and any other restricted data. I agree that I MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 5 Work Session will only use and disseminate Internal Affairs case file information and data from the IA database in the performance of my official duties, in that I will not knowingly allow any unauthorized access to the data. I understand that to use the confidential and restricted information outside of my official duties may be a violation of law.” Mr. Clark asked if under the agreement Ms. Reynolds had the ability to decide what information she did or did not share. Mr. Klein said to the extent that something fell under one of the provisions in the agreement, there was no discretion at all and restricted information could not be released. Mr. Clark asked if the photographs were restricted data. Mr. Klein replied that his preliminary conclusion was that the material was restricted data. If his answer was critical to the council, he would require two more days to collect additional information and finalize his analysis. Mr. Clark was pleased that the discussion was occurring in a public meeting at Ms. Reynolds’ request as he was not comfortable with a private conversation. Mr. Poling pointed out that the complaint process established by the council had been followed; it was Ms. Reynolds’ decision to hire an attorney. He noted that in Ms. Reynolds’ response to the complaint she indicated she had released physical evidence, not testimony, as the attorney would have obtained it anyway. He said that decision was the purview of the judicial system, not the police auditor. He was also concerned with statements in the response that he felt attempted to shift blame to the employee who complained, by questioning that person’s motives. He said that while the response indicated the auditor’s office attempted to avoid becoming involved in criminal or other legal proceedings, releasing the photographs did involve the auditor’s office. Mr. Pryor said as an employer he used a model of progressive discipline, which was based on the concept that issues had a progressive nature and included three standards. His criteria for determining the seriousness of an incident related to whether people were hurt or equipment destroyed. His second standard related to whether the situation was clear and unambiguous and the third related to whether the violation was intentional or just demonstrated poor judgment. He noted that there was no deception regarding the incident and Ms. Reynolds admitted that she released the information. He was not certain at this point, after reviewing Ms. Reynolds’ response, whether the photographs were restricted data and would need more time and a final opinion by the City Attorney to make that determination. He said it was difficult to determine whether an act was an intentional violation or an exercise of poor judgment and that difference would have an impact on the nature of progressive discipline. Ms. Taylor asserted that the council’s action was hasty and ill-advised and there should have been an investiga- tion of the complaint and a determination of whether it was a violation before placing Ms. Reynolds on administrative leave. She urged the council to reinstate her as soon as possible. She said it would have been preferable for the council to have a conversation with Ms. Reynolds about the situation instead of jumping to judgment. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the council did not jump to judgment; it followed standard operating procedure when dealing with personnel issues. He noted those were typically discussed in executive session but Ms. Reynolds had requested that the council deliberate on the matter in a public meeting. He stated that Ms. Reynolds was placed on administrative leave with pay, which did not equal suspension or imply guilt. He said the council should treat any complaint it received seriously and deal with those involved in a thorough, fair and respectful manner. He agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments about progressive discipline and determining how serious, unambiguous and willful an incident was before taking action. He thought the council shared some responsibili- MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 6 Work Session ty for the problem because of its lack of supervision of the Police Auditor; however, a process had been initiated to remedy that. Mr. Zelenka said it was not clear to him whether Ms. Reynolds knowingly violated the confidentiality agreement, but she had at least demonstrated poor judgment. He said the council should move forward to reinstate Ms. Reynolds with clear guidelines to be followed until a new police auditor was hired. Those guidelines included not releasing any information from the IA database without the approval of the City Attorney, frequent check-ins with the council or council officers as necessary before making those types of decisions, and meetings with the council officers, the City Attorney and the Deputy Police Auditor to discuss legal issues related to moving forward and mediation. Mr. Brown stated that based on the materials he had read he felt there was sufficient information for the council to make a decision. He did not feel the complaint was sustained and no discipline was merited; the incident arose from a misunderstanding. He said the City Manager and Municipal Judge both operated under long- standing and clear guidelines, while the police oversight system was new. He said anyone could make a mistake in judgment and Ms. Reynolds did nothing wrong, although it would have been better had Ms. Reynolds made copies instead of allowing the attorney to sit in her office and view the IA database. He cautioned against micro-managing the Police Auditor. Ms. Ortiz asserted that the council’s decision to hold an executive session and place Ms. Reynolds on administrative leave was not personal; it was based on the City Attorney’s advice and concerned the integrity of the police auditor’s office. She said it would have been inappropriate for the council to ignore or minimize the complaint. She remarked that all police oversight systems experiences “glitches” during their initial years of operation. She appreciated the City Attorney’s advice, but said it was the responsibility of the council as employer to make a decision about Ms. Reynolds’ status. She said the council also needed to be more responsible about providing adequate supervision for the Police Auditor, without micro-managing the office. Mr. Clark believed there was enough information to sustain the complaint as the agreement was clear in its prohibition against releasing any information for any reason. He said in order to decide against sustaining the complaint, a person would have to decide that Ms. Reynolds had the authority to decide which pieces of information were or were not covered by the agreement. He had previously expressed concerns to Ms. Reynolds on the issue of confidentiality. He agreed the council did not fulfill its duty to provide supervision and clear direction to the Police Auditor. He was disappointed in Ms. Reynolds’ judgment, but would not vote to dismiss her even though there was a clear violation of the agreement. He liked the guidelines suggested by Mr. Zelenka. He asked if there was information other than the photographs contained in the IA file that might have been revealed. Mr. Klein replied that the council should confine its discussion and decision to the specific complaint. Mr. Clark asked if the City had any liability or financial exposure in a future case related to divulging IA information. Mr. Klein said it would depend on the nature of the information being divulged and gave several examples that could put the City at risk. Mr. Clark asked if in Mr. Klein’s opinion the council needed any additional information to make a decision. Mr. Klein said it would depend on what the council decided was critical, such as a final determination on whether the confidentiality agreement was violated. He did not hear a majority of the council express an interest in that or other information. Ms. Piercy summarized the council’s discussion: all complaints should be treated equally and fairly; additional information was not required to make a decision; the council needed to be accountable; information from the IA database should not be shared, and there was some question about Ms. Reynolds’ judgment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pryor was pleased to hear the council acknowledging how its supervision of the auditor might have contributed to the situation. He said during his experience with the Ethics Commission there were instances when someone unknowingly committed a violation; that could not be overlooked but did not merit a fine or similar punishment. In those instances, the commission would determine a technical violation had occurred and issue a letter noting the violation while acknowledging it was likely inadvertent. He said the council should acknowledge that a violation of the confidentiality agreement had occurred, but punitive action beyond a letter acknowledging that fact was not required. He said additionally the council should put in place much clearer guidelines for use of the IA database information and other aspects of the auditor’s office. Mr. Brown remarked that based on his observations, Ms. Reynolds was doing a very good job and was aware of how confidentiality could be compromised. He did not believe there was a willful violation of the agreement and the council should work with the Police Auditor to develop better procedures. Mr. Zelenka commented that the council would take up the issue of police auditor supervision at its May 11 meeting, and the complexity of the issues involved was why he supported requiring the police auditor to have a law degree. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to reinstate the Police Auditor, with the caveat that the council believed she exercised poor judgment in getting into the circumstance and prohibited her from showing any information to any unauthorized person outside the criminal justice system from the IA PRO system without the approval of the City Attorney; requiring the Police Auditor to check in with the City Council officers before making substantive decisions; directing her to meet with council officers, the City Attorney and Deputy Police Auditor to discuss legal issues moving forward and elicit the help of a mediator to help the Police Auditor and Deputy Police Auditor work during the interim until a new police auditor was hired. Mr. Clark said the citizens of Eugene deserved to have a police auditor office that ran smoothly. He felt that the complaint could be sustained, but would support moving forward because that was the will of most of the council. He asked if the Police Auditor would have access to the IA database if the City Attorney concluded there had been a violation of the confidentiality agreement. Mr. Klein said if the council passed a motion to reinstate the Police Auditor he understood the council intended for her to have access to the IA database. Mr. Clark asked if the City would have additional liability if there was another violation of confidentiality. Mr. Klein said he did not believe the City would have any additional liability, but suggested modifying the motion to clarify that IA PRO information access would not be given by the auditor to anyone outside of the auditor’s office, instead of using the phrase “unauthorized person.” Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Clark agreed with the suggestion. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to separate reinstatement of the Police Auditor from the other provisions in the motion. The motion failed 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting yes. Ms. Taylor objected to placing conditions on the reinstatement of the Police Auditor and did not understand the council’s unwillingness to separate the issues. Ms. Solomon recommended defining the word “substantive” in the motion to clarify the type of issue that should be brought to the council’s attention. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Zelenka felt the threshold for what qualified as substantive had been dramatically lowered. He said there would be a new police auditor within a short period of time and that limited the number of issues that might arise. Ms. Piercy commented that the council’s supervision of the Police Auditor would be improved when new procedures were adopted. She thanked the councilors for the tenor of their discussion of a difficult subject and their willingness to move forward. Mr. Clark suggested modifying the motion to replace “…check in with council officers before she makes substantive decisions…” with “have regular check-in with council officers on day-to-day operations.” Mr. Zelenka restated his motion: “I move to reinstate the Police Auditor with the caveat that the council recognizes she exercised poor judgment in getting into this circumstance; that she does not permit access to IA PRO data to anyone outside the police auditor’s office without checking with the City Attorney; that she check- in with council officers before she makes substantive decisions and meet regularly with council officers on day- to-day management of the police auditor office; meet with the council officers, the City Attorney and the Deputy Police Auditor to discuss legal issues about moving forward and meet with the Deputy Police Auditor and a mediator on how to work together until the council hires a new police auditor.” Mr. Brown wanted to see half of the provisions eliminated because he felt they were insulting to the experience and intelligence of the council’s employee. He did not like the language but would support the motion because he wanted the auditor to return to work. Ms. Taylor said she felt she was being forced to vote for something that was an insult to the person in question. She asked if the provisions would apply to another person who was the police auditor. Mr. Zelenka said the provisions applied to Ms. Reynolds, but many of them would likely be in the new supervisory procedures. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 15, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. ALSO PRESENT: Kristie Hammit, Kurt Corey, Sarah Medary, Randy Groves, Glen Klein, Susan Muir, Jon Ruiz, Rene Grub, Pete Kerns, Mayor Kitty Piercy. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 1:03 p.m. Mr. Kerns briefed the council on a police incident from April 15, 2009, which had required the dispatch of the EPD SWAT team. A. WORK SESSION – City Council Goals Retreat Follow-up Ms. Piercy reminded those in attendance that the City Council and several City executive staff persons had participated in a goal-setting work session on February 7, 2009. Mr. Ruiz wished to continue the discussion from the previous goal-setting session and hoped to establish a framework for the future work of both the council and executive staff. Mr. Ruiz directed those in attendance to their copies of the Eugene Counts Framework (ECF) organizational chart and noted that it had been drafted from the previous goal-setting workshop for the purpose of demonstrating the desired outcomes of the City’s leaders as well as the specific measurements and strategies that would be employed to reach those outcomes. He further noted that the principles described in the chart would assist in helping the community fully understand the goals the City Council, staff and executives were trying to achieve. Mr. Ruiz presented a corresponding PowerPoint presentation for the ECF process and noted that in addition to demonstrating the various goals and desired outcomes for the City it would also provide opportunities for public feedback, evaluation and discussion. The council and executive staff discussed several variations on the language contained in the Council Vision and Safe Community portions of Mr. Ruiz’s ECF presentation as well as many revisions regarding the same. The council and staff members discussed the language and overall philosophies of the various bullet points as presented by the City Manager and further discussed several revisions. The council and staff briefly discussed the language of the Safe Community and the corresponding Outcomes statements as listed in the draft ECF chart. Mr. Ruiz noted that staff had attempted to keep the number of outcomes listed relatively low so that the measurement of those outcomes might be tracked more easily and efficiently. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 15, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Clark maintained that the nexus between the stated outcomes and guiding philosophies of the Safe Community statement would need to be demonstrated more clearly. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a comment from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the stated Safe Community outcomes might serve well as overall topics for more specific goals related to a safe community. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, clarified the “Diversity of commissions” outcome. The council and staff continued a discussion of the various overall philosophies and ideals related to the desired outcomes under the Safe Community statement. Ms. Piercy expressed that it would be very important for the Safe Community Outcomes section of the ECF chart to contain language specifically referencing the City’s commitment to responding to incidents of hate speech in the community. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Piercy’s statement. Mr. Clark briefly elaborated on the manner in which the diversity of commissions, boards and neighborhood leadership might relate to the Safe Community Outcomes. Ms. Ortiz commented that it would be important for the language of the ECF to be listed in a manner that accurately reflected the City’s community values statements. Mr. Zelenka, speaking with regard to the Safe Community portion of the ECF, noted that the overall concept of safety needed to go beyond just the absence of crime in a community. Ms. Taylor noted that it would be important for any attempt to increase the diversity of commissions and boards to include individuals whose beliefs were unpopular or contrary to prevailing beliefs. Ms. Taylor commented that it would be important for the City to establish a downtown youth center in order to promote the ideals reflected in the Safe Community statement. Mr. Ruiz responded that such a center might be included under the specific City strategies for FY10/11 or in the future. Mr. Pryor maintained that it would be important for the City staff and leadership to come to a consensus regarding the definition of the word “safe” as it applied to the Safe Community statement. Mr. Clark stated it would be important for the City to focus on positive metrics rather than negative ones in determining desired outcomes related to the Safe Community statement. Ms. Piercy, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Ruiz, suggested that it might be worthwhile to change the phrase “Safe Community” to “Safe and Welcoming Community” with respect to the ECF statements. The council and staff briefly discussed changes to the language in the Sustainable Community section of the ECF statements. Mr. Clark maintained that the Sustainable Community portion of the ECF would need to address progressive elements within the community and feared that a focus on sustainability as a vision for the City would lead to static and unchanging outcomes for the community. The council members and staff discussed various elements and perspectives related to the Sustainable Community section of the ECF statements. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 15, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka expressed that it would be important for the Sustainable Community Outcomes to specifically address economic, environmental, social and future concerns; and suggested that input from the City’s Sustainability Commission might be useful in clarifying the language of the ECF. Mr. Ruiz expressed that the council and staff were continuing to determine the visions and goals for the City as well as how measurements for success for such goals might be implemented in a manner that would be easily understood by the citizens of Eugene. He encouraged the council and staff members to come forth with any additional ideas or input they might have regarding the ECF in the coming weeks. Ms. Piercy asked those in attendance if, in continuing the discussion regarding the statements of the ECF, it would be better to schedule a series of discussion meetings rather than conduct a larger half-day work session. Mr. Clark and Mr. Zelenka agreed that a larger work session might be a more efficient way to complete the work regarding the ECF. Mr. Ruiz noted that staff would incorporate council’s suggestions regarding the language contained in the ECF and continue to develop it. Mr. Ruiz commented that the framework described by the ECF was very helpful to staff in that it allowed them to focus their energies in an efficient and effective manner. Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 15, 2009 Page 3 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing/Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 20, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown. Councilor Zelenka called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Kitty Piercy was representing the City in Portland at the National League of Cities Green Cities Conference. 1. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Scott Smith , Pond Lane, Eugene, Ward 5, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He said he attended many of the meetings of the advisory committee convened to make recommendations to the council on rental housing issues and was surprised by the lack of attendance of tenants. He felt the ordinance revisions were being driven by a vocal minority of tenants claiming to be self-appointed tenant advocates. He did not think mold was a problem that rose to the level of an ordinance amendment. He said the existing rental program operated with a surplus of funds and adding mold to the ordinance would not mean they were spent on better service to the citizens of Eugene. Regarding mold, Mr. Smith remarked that the ordinance did not recognize the fact that the majority of household mold was related to tenant behavior and choices, such as use of ventilation fans, maintaining proper heat in the dwelling, having aquariums or other sources of moisture. He agreed that leaks from plumbing or roofs, which also caused mold, was the responsibility of the landlord, but that was already covered in the code. He said the net effect of the ordinance would be to reduce the amount of affordable rental housing available in the community. Don Milligan, Eugene, stated he was no longer in the rental business, but was representing someone whose property had been destroyed by a tenant. He described the situation in which a tenant had rented property for ten years and when he left the property was so heavily damaged it had to be demolished; the landlord had lost her livelihood and was faced with the cost of demolishing the structure while still paying taxes and insurance costs. He said a landlord rented for 60 cents on the dollar. Jim Welsh , Centennial Parkway, Eugene, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, said many realtors were also in property management and mold was a concern to them. He said mold was directly MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 1 Public Hearing related to moisture and felt the proposed ordinance took an appropriate approach by emphasizing education and investigation, instead of direct regulation. John VanLandingham , North Grand Street, Eugene, stated he had been co-chair of the advisory committee dealing with the subject of mold. As an advocate for low-income tenants for the past 30 years, he said that mold was a concern for tenants statewide. He said the committee recommendation was the right way to approach mold; it did not add mold to the list of violations under the housing code, but instead identified the presence of significant visible mold as a symptom of something that was already a violation of the housing code such as plumbing or a leak in the building envelope. He said experts consulted by the committee stated that in every case where there were significant mold deposits it was the result of a leak and not tenant behavior. Councilor Zelenka thanked Mr. VanLandingham for co-chairing the committee and other committee members for their service. He called for comments from councilors. Councilor Brown said he attended an advisory committee meeting and found the presentation from a microbiologist who studied mold to be very informative, specifically that molds caused by tenant behavior were not the ones that caused health problems. He said molds that caused health problems required the level of moisture that occurred from a long-standing water intrusion. He felt the proposed ordinance language did not present an onerous burden for landlords. Councilor Solomon asked how a determination of “significant visible mold” was made. Mr. VanLanding- ham said the ordinance did not provide a definition beyond that term; that was the standard used in several other cities and states. He said the City’s inspectors would be trained to identify significant visible mold and investigate the source. Councilor Brown asked if City inspectors would test mold to determine the varieties that were present and determine whether any were harmful. Mr. VanLandingham said consultants who were experts had indicated that current testing procedures were not reliable and the committee’s recommendation did not require testing. Councilor Clark felt the term “significant” was vague, particularly when it could result in considerable expense to a landlord. He would prefer more clarity of definition in the ordinance. He asked how the committee’s recommendations added protection that was not already available through the state and whether there was a state measurement of significant mold. Mr. VanLandingham said mold was not mentioned in state statute, but landlords were required to maintain rental units free of significant plumbing leaks and building envelope leaks. He said Legal Aid lawyers regarded the statute as sufficient because it addressed the causes of mold. Councilor Clark asked if the committee’s recommendation was unanimous. Mr. VanLandingham said the decision was unanimous. He said the committee also agreed that it was not feasible to provide a specific definition of “significant visible mold” as other cities’ housing programs operated without one and trained City staff would be able to identify it when they saw it and initiate an investigation of the source. Councilor Ortiz asked for clarification of a budget message that the rental housing program was being moved from the General Fund. City Manager Jon Ruiz replied that the General Fund was paying a portion of the support costs for the program and that would no longer be the case. Councilor Ortiz asked if the current fees would be able to support the program. Program manager Rachelle Nicholas replied that the current fees would support the program and continue to generate excess revenue MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 2 Public Hearing that would be retained within the program. She said the program would be moved from the General Fund and become a dedicated fund because council had indicated it wanted all of the fees paid by property owners to remain with the program; this approach would allow better tracking of program revenue. Councilor Ortiz said she did not want to see revenue from fees simply collect in a fund and not be spent. She asked for an accounting of program revenues and expenditures. She asked if the General Fund was currently paying for part of the cost of program support costs. Mr. Ruiz said the General Fund was subsidizing City overhead costs. Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir explained that a dedicated fund would provide better cost accounting for Central Services costs such as information technology, phone service and facilities. She said the General Fund was not subsidizing the program, but those expenses were not being accounted for as a cost recovery method that demonstrated the program was paying for itself. Councilor Clark asked about the amount of money that was carried over during the first two years of the program and the total costs that were being shifted from the General Fund. Ms. Nicholas said approximate- ly $50,000 was carried over one year and $70,000 the next year. Ms. Muir said the Central Services costs were about $33,000 per year. Councilor Clark noted that would still leave carryover funds and asked if a new position would be added to enforce the new regulations. Ms. Muir said there were no plans to add another staff position and the department was still working to “right size” the program, which was still relatively new, to balance the fees with the budget and staff. Councilor Clark asked if the program budget message would indicate the intent for use of excess funds within the program on a long-term basis. Ms. Muir said retaining the fees within the program was part of the “right-sizing” process while actual operating expenses were determined. Councilor Clark commented that an earlier suggestion was to reduce the fees to property owners if the amount being collected was more than required to support the program and recommended staff consider that option. Mr. Ruiz said the intent was to maintain a reasonable fund balance in the program and adjust fees administratively as appropriate. Mr. Zelenka closed the public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning the Police Auditor; Amending Sections 2.450, 2.452, 2.454, 2.456 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date for Implementation. Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Carol Berg-Caldwell , Augusta Street, Eugene, said her initial concerns that formation of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) would result in dilution of the oversight system had not been realized. She expressed her appreciation for those who served on the committee and the extent to which they valued the public input process. She urged the council to reconvene the PAORC to address the remaining issues of an appeal process, concurrency of administrative and criminal investigations and complaints against the Police Chief. She wanted the oversight system to be “personality-proofed.” She asserted that the council’s actions against Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds violated the external oversight ordinance MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 3 Public Hearing because the oversight system was independent and she believed requiring the auditor to check in with the City Attorney was in violation of that. She hoped the council would rectify its actions posthaste. Zachary Vishanoff , Eugene, Ward 3, asked if the council was willing to hold the record open for two weeks because he did not think the public was aware of the hearing. He questioned whether there was a willingness to solve the problem and said the public did not know about the existing rules for the Police Auditor, the proposed changes to the rules, the outstanding issues the PAORC might be reconvened to explore and the rationale for the recent censure of the Police Auditor. He felt the public hearing was premature because people had to testify about a moving target. He regretted that those providing testimony were not given five minutes to speak. He urged the council to keep the record open and asked if there would be a second hearing if the PAORC was reconvened. Majeska Seese-Green , Eugene, Ward 7, supported the strongest possible oversight system and urged unanimous adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments. She said the recent Taser case underscored the need for an oversight system, but had heard from many in the community that they had no faith in the current system. She said the PAORC process had some flaws, but the public process and strategies for keeping the public informed were good. She hoped that other groups would use that model. She expressed concern that the proposed amendments from PAORC would be revised without providing the public an opportunity to comment. Councilor Zelenka stated that he was a member of the PAORC and at each of its eight meetings the committee took public comment at the beginning and again at the end. He said if the PAORC was reconvened and recommended further ordinance amendments there would be another public hearing. Councilor Clark assured the public that there was no conflict between the council’s unanimous action with respect to the Police Auditor and the Charter. Pursuant to that action, he and Councilor Zelenka met with the Police Auditor in their role as direct supervisors. He noted that the independent auditor was independent of the City organization, the City Manager and the police department, but not independent of the council; the auditor was an employee of the council. The council’s action put in place supervisory guidelines and protocols for communications and day-to-day operations. He said the auditor was not required to gain the approval of the City Attorney, but there were instances in which the City Attorney acted as an agent of the council and the auditor was asked to work with the attorney to work out protocols in specific situations related to sharing information. Councilor Zelenka commented that the Police Auditor was asked to check in with the council on a specific matter of law, not the entire breadth of the Police Auditor’s duties and responsibilities. He closed the public hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance concerning Solid Waste Administrative Powers and Amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed procedures for providing testimony. Dee Ward , Andersen Lane, Eugene, Ward 7, agreed that there needed to be a solution to funding the City’s street maintenance and repair, but questioned why only garbage trucks were included in the surcharge and not business haulers that used residential streets such as Rexius, Lane Forest Products, medical suppliers, building suppliers, and home repair and freight delivery trucks. She said in addition, individual residents MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 4 Public Hearing used heavy vehicles like recreational vehicles and sport utility vehicles. She said it did not appear to be an all-inclusive, fairly assessed surcharge; the solid waste haulers should not be singled out. David Van Sickle , Grove Street, Eugene, said he was a County resident and the garbage surcharge was actually a pass-through tax and taxation without representation. He bought fuel in the City and paid the gas tax and asked that the City not come to his home and tax one of his purchases. He suggested the ordinance apply only to business inside the City or taxes collected from County residents be forwarded to the County for its road fund. He cautioned that enacting the ordinance could have legal ramifications. Zachary Vishanoff , Eugene, Ward 3, thought the surcharge was part of the sustainability initiative partly because sustainability was a multi-faceted, eco-elitist way of taxing people. He suggested that the council pursued “garbage” public policy and by reforming bad public policy there would be more funds to fix the roads. He pointed to the amount of funds spent on urban renewal, multi-family property tax exemptions, urban villages and increased density and multi-way boulevard planning. He urged the council to look at the larger budget issues and priorities and allow citizens to plan their own neighborhoods. He said if the budgeting process was simpler and all the money went into a General Fund, street repairs could be funded first. Brian Bales , Eugene, co-owner of Royal Refuse Service, spoke in opposition to the surcharge. He said it was difficult to connect the amount of garbage generated to road use. Two houses on the same street might have different sized garbage containers and would pay different surcharges, yet the same truck drove by and picked up the garbage. He felt there was no equity in the surcharge. He estimated that his customers would see a $6.00 to $9.00 increase in their monthly garbage bill; comparing that to a two-cent gas tax, it represented 300 to 450 gallons of gas. He said the Bethel School District was a customer and would face a $450 per month increase at a time when schools did not need additional costs. He was concerned that customers would migrate to smaller container sizes, which would decrease his revenues and potentially result in inappropriate disposal of garbage. He said collection and reporting of the tax would also represent a significant administrative burden for his company. He urged the City to consider more equitable and sustainable ways to increase its revenue. Ann Klemp , Blachly, Oregon, said she owned rental property in Eugene and the surcharge would be passed on to her; she could pay the difference or pass it on to her renters. She said 30 percent of her tenants had lost their jobs and several were on disability; it would be very difficult for them to pay an additional amount. She said new taxes should be deferred until the economy had recovered and an equitable tax could be established. John Barofsky , Hubbard Lane, Eugene, Ward 3, spoke in favor of the surcharge. He noted that the City had guaranteed garbage haulers a fair profit when establishing rates and the true costs of hauling garbage included a number of things such as landfill fees, equipment, fuel and damage to infrastructure. He said the council’s subcommittee had explored ways to capture revenue from the other heavy trucks using residential streets but determined it could not be done. He felt it was his duty to pay the costs of hauling garbage and the City should not subsidize paying for street repairs. He said having garbage hauled from his home or business was a service he enjoyed and he should have to pay the true cost of that. He noted that a majority of the General Fund was used for public safety and other services valued by the community and using the General Fund to pay for road repairs would require cuts to those services. He felt the surcharge was a fair approach. Scott Bales , Airport Road, Eugene, noted that Lane Transit District (LTD) operated more vehicles at greater frequency on residential streets than did garbage haulers. He said there were other heavy trucks MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 5 Public Hearing using streets, but garbage haulers had been selected for the road repair tax because they had a billing system in place that covered most of the City and there was a perception that garbage trucks did more damage to the streets. He said there were more effective utilities, such as Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), for collection of a tax as more households and businesses had EWEB meters than had garbage service. He said the road repair tax was double taxation because garbage haulers already collected taxes for the County and City. As an example of double taxation, he used an Albertson’s store that currently paid $94.55 to truck garbage to the landfill and once it was there paid another $35.05 to Lane County Solid Waste for the landfill and $29.95 for a system benefit charge. When the new surcharge went into effect it would increase the cost of trucking by almost $5.00 per haul. Robert Tallman , Chevy Chase Street, Eugene, commented that some people would discontinue their garbage service and dump garbage alongside roads or put it in yard debris cans. He said the surcharge was a road tax, not a garbage surcharge because it had nothing to do with garbage; it related to road mainten- ance. He agreed that the City needed funds to maintain and repair roads and suggested that the council consider another gas tax, but this time gain the community’s support. Amanda Dalton , Lake Oswego, Oregon, representing the Northwest Grocery Association, said members were aware of the City’s need for road repair funds and understood the struggles facing cities trying to address serious transportation needs with dwindling dollars. She said the association was committed to supporting jurisdictions in their road funding needs and agreed with Public Works Director Kurt Corey’s proposal of short-term transfers in lieu of a ten percent garbage surcharge utility fee, but remained concerned about the proposed five percent surcharge. She said the surcharge would result in over $180 per month in new taxes for the association’s largest members and the greatest concern with the fee was that it was not part of a comprehensive transportation funding package. She said the surcharge, coupled with a street utility fee based on parking spaces that was under discussion, could result in a significant financial burden on stores. She urged the council to enact one package to address the City’s transportation needs, but if the surcharge was approved it should be a temporary measure with a one-year sunset to allow for a more comprehensive approach to be developed. Jared Mason-Gere , Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Chamber of Commerce, thanked the council and staff for their efforts to identify transportation system funding; however, the chamber member- ship was opposed to the proposed surcharge and believed it was contrary to the City’s desire to support businesses and retain existing jobs. He commended the process related to Bond Measure 2145 to address road repairs and said members would be supportive of similar efforts. Rich Gaston , Wisconsin Street, Eugene, Ward 6, did not object to the design of the tax, but had concerns with how the City prioritized its spending and its need to build trust with taxpayers. He felt there were adequate funds existing to maintain roads, but leadership to make the difficult decisions to rebalance spending across the various priorities was lacking. He noted that the City had purchased a fleet of hand- powered bicycles for people to borrow and the use of Toyota Prius vehicles by City employees. He agreed with the goals behind those purchases, but not with the decision to prioritize those purchases ahead of maintaining roads. It was disingenuous to spend lavishly on pet projects and then come to taxpayers and ask for additional funds to pay for this basic City service. He recommended the City, in order to restore trust and build sustainable support for new taxes: 1) demonstrate it took seriously ongoing budget balancing by resizing the City’s head count and benchmarking it against other cities its size, 2) follow through on the budget initiative to ask citizens what their priorities were for spending and using that input to develop the budget, and 3) better communicate spending decisions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 6 Public Hearing Scott Smith , Pond Lane, Eugene, Ward 5, said he believed that maintaining infrastructure was a fundamen- tal responsibility of the City and road funding should be a sufficiently high priority that it was supported by the General Fund instead of extra taxes or other fund-raising devices. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing and called for comments. Councilor Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Ruiz that the surcharge would apply only to City residents. He asked staff to determine prior to the next work session the change in the number of people with garbage service after the recent fee increase. He said he was on the council subcommittee on transportation funding and supported the surcharge because there was a direct nexus between certain vehicles and damage to the streets. He said the subcommittee looked closely at other heavy vehicles using the streets, but there were no others using the streets as regularly as garbage trucks. He said there was no practical way to establish the specific street usage of other heavy vehicles and some of those trucks were not operated by Eugene businesses. He said a number of options for funding street repairs were considered and the garbage hauler surcharge seemed equitable and fair because it charged both commercial and residential users. He was willing to consider modifying its impact on school districts. Councilor Clark disagreed with Councilor Zelenka and Mr. Barofsky’s comments. He said the surcharge seemed to be an arbitrary choice for taxing people, using the justification that those trucks alone caused a unique type of damage to the streets. He said it was a bad time to impose additional costs on people, given the current economic situation and federal and regional governments were also looking at additional measures to generate revenue. He asked the staff to compile a list of the new taxes and fees being considered by all levels of government that would impact the residents of Eugene so the council would have a clearer perspective at its work session on the surcharge. Councilor Pryor said he also served on the transportation subcommittee that put forth the surcharge proposal and while it seemed like a reasonable part of an overall funding package at that time, he was impressed by the testimony addressing larger community issues and not just personal impact. He said the City did need to generate a source of revenue to help with the cost of road repair and maintenance; paying for transportation from the General Fund would require will on the council to cut public safety and other services. He said the testimony provided during the hearing would have an influence on his consideration of the surcharge. Mr. Ruiz remarked that the budgeting process included reducing the City’s footprint—headcount, fleet, facilities—as part of the solution to the budget deficit. He said the surcharge was the only new fee or tax being proposed in the FY 2010 budget. Councilor Poling asked what methodology would be used to separate City residents from County residents for purposes of imposing the surcharge in sections of the City like Santa Clara. Mr. Corey replied that the mechanism would be similar to the one under which the garbage haulers currently paid a license fee to the City. He would provide the council with details of that mechanism. Councilor Poling stated he would not support the surcharge because it was an unfair tax. He felt there was a better way to fund the transportation system than singling out an industry because it was an easy target when there were many other heavy vehicles using residential streets. He would be more inclined to support the surcharge if there was a guarantee that the funds collected would be used exclusively for residential streets, but was unwilling to place the burden on garbage haulers to support the entire transportation infrastructure. He also saw no relationship between street usage and the amount of garbage that was hauled. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 7 Public Hearing Councilor Brown stated that he initially supported the surcharge, but had since developed doubts. He was most concerned about the impact on school districts. He asked how much the gas tax would need to be increased to generate $900,000 annually. Mr. Corey replied that an increase of approximately 1.5 cents would generate that amount. Councilor Solomon remarked that the subcommittee had recommended a comprehensive funding package with five components, but had not been able to garner enough support on the council for most of them. She said during the subcommittee’s discussions the issue was raised that some vehicles could not be charged because they already paid a weight/mile tax. She asked which vehicles paid that tax. Mr. Corey responded that trucks over a certain size all paid the state weight/mile tax, including garbage haulers. Eugene received approximately $2 million dollars annually from that tax. He said the issue was not that the other trucks could not be charged, but rather that the surcharge related to more frequent use of the transportation system. He said imposing a fee on all large trucks would appear to be a vehicle licensing fee and that was not within the City’s authority; the County would need to enact such a funding mechanism. Councilor Pryor mentioned that part of the challenge of transportation system funding was that there were funding options that could be implemented at the County level, but the County had been unwilling to discuss enacting those revenue mechanisms. He noted that those options could help to resolve transportation funding for jurisdictions throughout Lane County. He urged residents to persuade county commissioners to engage in that conversation with cities. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Pryor and noted that the subcommittee had made that recommen- dation to the County, which had not acted upon it. Councilor Clark commented that a ten-cent gas tax for two months could generate enough revenue to solve the problem. 4. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Wastewater and Stormwater Service and Amending Sections 6.411 and 6.421 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for providing testimony. Jared Mason-Gere , Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stated that members supported the proposed ordinance amendment. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing. There were no comments from councilors. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Resolution 4971 Approving the Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. He noted there was no one wishing to testify and closed the hearing. He called for comments from councilors. Councilor Solomon asked why the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) had not requested the entire $196 million necessary to complete the 38 projects on the list when its borrowing authority was originally approved. Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffier replied that he was not certain, but the initial request for $100 million to support the Facilities Plan was based on engineering MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 8 Public Hearing estimates and costing, and MWMC hoped that the revenue bonds plus user rates and a revolving loan fund would be sufficient, but there was an expectation that additional borrowing authority might be necessary. Ms. Solomon asked if projects were on budget and on time. Mr. Ruffier replied that the Facilities Plan was re-costed in 2006, going from $144 million to $196 million in estimated costs. He said the experience over the past two years was that projects were coming in on time and under budget. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 9 Public Hearing