Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A - Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: February 27, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 2A 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 January 5, 2006, State of the City Address, January 23, 2006, Work Session, and January 25, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.January 5, 2006, State of the City Address B.January 23, 2006, Work Session C.January 25, 2006, Work Session 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\M060227\S0602272A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 5, 2006—State of the City TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 2/14 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 2/21 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 2/21 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council State of the City Hult Center for the Performing Arts—One Eugene Center January 5, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS City Council President George Poling called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed those present to the annual State of the City event. He noted the many elected officials from other jurisdictions in attendance. Mr. Poling thanked City staff for being hard working and dedicated employees. Mr. Poling recognized the contributions of the many people who volunteer for the City. Mr. Poling thanked his wife Glenda for her support and recognized the birth of his newest constituent, a granddaughter. II. MUSICAL SELECTION Those in attendance heard a musical selection from the Oregon Peace Choir, under the direction of Valerie Rogers. Mr. Poling introduced other members of the Eugene City Council. III. CITY COUNCILOR REMARKS Ms. Bettman thanked those present for their attendance and thanked the mayor for providing an opportunity for councilors to speak. She thanked the many volunteers, including her colleagues on the council, who were engaged in the community. She hoped more citizens would become involved in civic affairs and said one did not need to be an expert to do so. Ms. Bettman said that people could educate themselves about topics that interested them and become involved at many levels. She said the democratic process needed more participants. Ms. Bettman shared a quote from Aristotle: “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best be attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” To reinforce that point, she also shared a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “. . .the only MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 1 State of the City sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well-enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.” Ms. Bettman said whether or not one approved of the policies of Mayor Piercy, she thought all could agree that the mayor deserved respect for the many qualities she brought to office, including her exuberance. She congratulated the mayor, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Ortiz on their first year in office. Ms. Taylor thanked Mayor Piercy for the opportunity to speak. She said the state of the city was somewhat diminished by the loss of long-time resident Charles Porter, deemed by some to be an authentic American hero who did not place re-election above principle. Ms. Taylor also thanked those who spoke the truth and worked for the long-term good of the community, including Nancy Stapp of KOPT for providing a radio voice to individuals like Jim Weaver, George Beres, and Hart Williams. She thanked the Eugene Weekly for offering a forum for what she termed diverse views and the “courageous” writing of Alan Pittman, Kera Abraham, and Ted Taylor. Ms. Taylor said the community was enriched by many neighborhood groups that had the courage to see, the commitment to speak the truth, and the desire to work for the common good. She cited the Chambers Area Families for Health Neighborhood (CAFHN) effort as an example of that. Ms. Taylor hoped for similar success for other neighborhoods groups in their efforts to preserve or improve their areas, such as the Crest Drive, Nectar Way, Santa Clara, and College Hill neighborhoods. Ms. Taylor wished continued success to the Oregon Research Institute in its efforts to build in downtown and called on the City to lend the organization the money it needed to do so. Ms. Taylor wished that rather than “submitting blindly” to growth predictions, the community would work toward Robert Emmons’ alternative 2050 vision as outlined in a recent guest commentary in The Register- Guard, in which the environment was healthy and there were far fewer residents living in Lane County. She considered it a daring vision, and hoped that all residents would dare to dream of what was best for the community. Mr. Kelly thanked Mayor Piercy for her good and hard work in her first year as mayor. He noted that this was his last year attending the State of the City event as a sitting councilor, and thanked those present, the voters in his ward, and countless other Eugene residents for their encouragement, support, and critical feedback he had received over the years. He thanked the community for being allowed to serve it, as his council service was the most fulfilling experience of his life. Mr. Kelly said he would continue to serve in the remaining months of his term. Mr. Kelly said Eugene had stunning assets in the form of its people, institutions, and natural resources. The community had the tools to accomplish a great deal but it will require the assistance of residents. Mr. Kelly said that Eugene was sometimes described as the City of Endless Process. While he believed process was important, he suggested there could be truth to the reputation. There was a time to set specific, measurable goals and act to accomplish them. Mr. Kelly asked those present to take the “long view” and talk with each other about what they could agree on. He asked them to stretch beyond their comfort zones and easy answers. He quoted H. L. Mencken: “Every problem has a solution that is easy, obvious, and wrong.” Mr. Kelly cited sustainability and growth as examples of issues facing the community that would require resolution. He said the City’s Growth Management Study polices established a blueprint for the future in those regards, and he urged the community to use the blueprint. Mr. Kelly said he was encouraged by work being done by the Planning MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 2 State of the City Commission with regard to density opportunity siting and the alternate path through the Land Use Code. He said “let’s show other cities Eugeneans knows how to manage growth.” Mr. Kelly asked how the community could work on racism and homelessness so all residents feel embraced and welcomed. He noted the various City advisory and community groups working on those issues and said a difference could be made only if change was embraced by all. He agreed with Ms. Bettman about the importance of citizen involvement in civic affairs. Mr. Kelly asked those present how they could make the reality of Eugene better match the vision of Eugene, and advocated for concrete actions to begin that effort. IV. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION Council Vice President Jennifer Solomon recognized City employees Denise Smith of the Human Resources and Risk Services Division and Char Mauch of the Municipal Court for their exemplary service and contributions to the work place. Mayor Piercy presented the Employee Sustainability Award to Keli Osborn of the Building and Permit Services Division. Mayor Piercy recognized representatives of national, local, and regional businesses making a difference through their use of sustainable practices and products: Craig Phillips of Staples, Incorporated; Miles Johnson of King Estate Oregon Wines; David Ambrose of Organically Grown Company, President Mary Spilding of Lane Community College, and Scott Forrest of Forrest Paint Company. V. STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS Mayor Piercy gave the following address: It’s good to be with you all here today. It has been a full year since I took my oath of office and spoke to many of you with great determination and optimism about the future of our community. Last year, I was joined here by many who hope to see Eugene step up to its full potential. Like me, they believe that if one place in this country is going to do it right—to ensure the well-being of our people, our natural resources and our economy—it should be here in Eugene. In truth, there were others in the room with more reservations and more skepticism. They worried that the fractious nature of Eugene politics would hold us back from accomplishing our goals. So how has it gone this past year? We have had no lack of major civic issues to address. It has been a pretty exciting year. I have thoroughly enjoyed being your Mayor. That’s right, enjoyed it. It’s a privilege and I thank you once again for giving me this unique opportunity to work with you and for you. Much has been achieved and much is left to do. A special “thank you” to my family, my husband, David, and those who have worked hard with me to make last year’s promises translate into action. And, a special thank you to City Manager Dennis Taylor and to all our City staff who use their talents daily on behalf of our community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 3 State of the City Working together I would like to begin by talking about how we work together in Eugene, given our different points of view. Our high level of civic engagement is our asset. Many of us choose to live in Eugene because of that very attribute. It is important to hear from all parts of our community, to take advantage of the high level of expertise we have available, and to make policy decisions based on that broad range of information and perspectives. I am proud of the thousands of citizens who take the time to communicate their views as well as volunteer in our neighborhood associations, non-profits and civic organizations. It has been fun to open the city hall doors to a wide spectrum of concerns and interests. It is hearing all those voices and listening to them carefully that enables me to be the Mayor for all Eugene. Following up on last year’s proposals to improve our public process/communication How have I followed up on last year’s proposals to improve our public process and communications? Along with city councilors, I have had Mayor’s one-on-one sessions in grocery stores throughout the city. We simply set up a table and make ourselves available to talk with residents. It has been a great place to reach out to folks. These sessions have been well-attended, interesting, fun and have provided great opportunities for easy and informal conversations on any issue. I also have given regular mayoral updates on two radio stations and one television station. In addition, we improved the City’s web site communications (it’s getting faster, please have patience) and worked to strengthen neighborhood associations and newsletter communications. I began with a goal to strengthen the relationship with River Road/Santa Clara. Several City-fostered committees are now working hard, making recommendations for better service delivery and communications. While these are significant steps forward, the relationship between the City and the unincorporated area is still a complicated and uneasy one. Trust is building, but we are not there yet. Working with City Councilors More than I could have predicted, Ihave enjoyed working with our city councilors. They are intelligent, hard working, dedicated people. I want to publicly thank each of them for their long hours of meetings, of poring over documents, of doing their utmost from their individual points of view to serve this community. It has been my goal to respect and learn from each of them. They are individuals representing different constituencies and do not always agree, but they do work hard to respect the views of all, to engage our residents and to carefully use the expertise we have. They aim for the win/win when it is possible. When we first began working together a year ago, the council had just one agreed-upon priority. This year we adopted eight clearly defined priorities. This is more than talk. Let me share these priorities with you and how we are moving forward on them. • Priority #1 – Re-staff Fire Station 9. Just this morning we celebrated the re-staffing of Fire Station Nine near Valley River and this year we also opened two other new stations in downtown Eugene and in Santa Clara. • Priority #2 - Complete and Consider Police Department Reviews and Implement Appropriate Changes. We passed a measure to put in place a Police Civilian Review Board and an Independent Auditor. In addition, our Chief of Police has committed to a policy of community po- licing that will make our neighborhoods safer and empower our citizens to participate in creating a safer community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 4 State of the City • Priority #3 - Conclude Discussion of City Hall Complex. We completed the initial review and have begun a city hall public engagement process to deter- mine the kind of structure that would best meet our community needs and truly offer a place for civic engagement and democracy to thrive. • Priority #4 - Facilitate the Development of a Hospital in Eugene’s Central Core. There is a hospital site chosen by McKenzie Willamette/Triad now under consideration. It is not in the preferred central city area but it is in Eugene. • Priority #5 - Push Arts and the Outdoors as a Theme for Eugene. We adopted the city motto “World’s Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors.” In one year’s time, we moved to achieve my proposal that we promote our area’s combination of arts and the outdoors. We adopted an official motto, landed the Olympic Trials and welcomed new art galleries. Kudos to all involved in our parks and recreation activities. Kudos for the vast range of performance offer- ings, including internationally recognized dance and music groups, choral and vocal groups, reper- tory and local theatre offerings, as well as national touring shows. Kudos for the cooperative galler- ies, genre-specific galleries, and new galleries. In fact, we even have an official gallery district just across the street. And you are standing here today in a well-known and appreciated performance hall, our own magnificent Hult Center. • Priority #6 - Launch Neighborhood Initiative. We have undertaken a neighborhood initiative. As I proposed, we have begun to strengthen the City’s ties to neighborhoods by recognizing the important role of neighborhood associations in our planning processes, funding more newsletters and website opportunities, and reaching out to our RiverRoad/ Santa Clara residents and neighbors. • Priorities #7 and #8 - Develop City Council Position on Racial Issues; Develop a Strategy to Help the Homeless In Eugene. We have continued to address race and homelessness. A year ago, I talked about our desire to be a welcoming community for all. To reach that goal, we have begun educating ourselves through privilege training. Staff also participates in training and strategic planning sessions. Both internally and externally, we have committed ourselves to staying the course. Putting a civilian review board and independent auditor in place is part of the “action, not just talk” that has been asked of us. Our priority to reduce homelessness is challenging. We work with partners to grow our supply of low-cost housing in Eugene and yet we recognize that too many have no home at all. We also strive to address the rights and access to services, including the library, for those without addresses. We applaud our Police Commission and Human Rights Commission for the work they do to help inform and guide us. We thank the representatives of communities of color who serve on both these bodies and those who met with the council to help focus the work we have ahead. I invite you to keep working with us. And all of these priorities have required intensive efforts by our City staff and we very much appreciate the work they do. Most of these priorities will require continued commitment on the part of our City Council and staff to make real changes for the people of our community. Each has a role in meeting the Council Goals for Eugene: safe community; accessible and thriving culture and recreation; effective accountable municipal government; fair, stable and adequate financial resources. The fifth goal is one I would like to highlight now and tell you MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 5 State of the City about the work underway. That goal is sustainable development and it is a cornerstone of my commitment to you. Building a more sustainable Eugene Eugene has long had a commitment to environmental stewardship. Our growth management policies reflect this commitment. Yet, in recent years, economic success and preservation of our natural resources have often been pitted against each other. One year ago I said I thought Eugene wants both and that is what I put forward in my five-point economic plan. I suggested we look at how to make Eugene a more sustainable community, one that protects it natural and human capital while being economically successful - the triple bottom line. Thus, I launched the Mayor’s Sustainable Business Initiative. The Mayor’s Sustainable Business Initiative I launched this initiative for solid economic and environmental reasons, and today some of our brightest business, social, and academic leaders representing all political persuasions are working hand-in-hand on a new vision for our future. Under the talented guidance of Bob Doppelt of the University of Oregon, Dave Funk of Funk/Levis, and Rusty Rexius of Rexius Forest Products, a 16-member task force has hosted a series of roundtables to better assess what we can do locally to foster the growth of businesses that produce sustainable products. The philosophy behind a sustainable economy is to have thriving businesses that create jobs with good wages and benefits. Our businesses can be successful without damaging the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the ground we live on, and they will save money in the long run. Economic success and natural resource preservation can go hand-in-hand. The SBI is an effort to develop an economic sector that is well-suited to Eugene and could capitalize on the growing interest and need for sustainable products. Examples are natural foods, natural products, bio diesel, alternative energy, green building, recycling, education and investment. Out of these roundtables came recommendations that will be prioritized by the task force. These will then be directed to the City Council as appropriate or to other agencies and bodies for consideration. The SBI will also address ways to better educate and engage our community in sustainability and to encourage all businesses to adopt these practices. The October-November issue of “Open for Business” published by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, focused entirely on embracing sustainability, and the Chamber has made sustainability one of its 2006 goals. I trust this will give us opportunities to work together. Businesses across this country have saved millions of dollars by becoming more sustainable. We can pump up our economy and carve out an economic niche that is right for Eugene by finding ways to encourage and support the development of sustainable practices and products. We can be a city on the front edge of what is right and what keeps our economy healthy. In short, we can make Eugene a place with an unparalleled quality of life - the most desirable city in the northwest. Not "Anywhere, USA,” but beautiful, clean, and prosperous Eugene, where rivers flow under clean skies, businesses grow, children thrive, and where people know their voices count. This is an exciting opportunity! Now let’s talk about the future MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 6 State of the City The Eugene City Council and I have some accomplishments under our belts but many are just beginnings. In order to really address many of last year’s priorities, we will have to make them this year’s priorities as well. To the extent we can, we should ensure that our budget reflects those priorities. • We will get the Police Civilian Review Board up and going and hire an outside auditor. We will strengthen our public safety capacity through community policing, address property crimes, and en- sure our downtown is safe and enjoyable. • We will complete the city hall public engagement process and determine the structure that best suits our community needs. It is an opportunity to build something worthy for generations to come. • Eugene will have a full-service hospital underway. • Through the implementation of community strategies, we will measure successful steps in address- ing racial issues and homelessness. We will commit to making Eugene a welcoming, inclusive community across race, ethnicity, gender, age, class (and even the river). • We will treat our youth as a community asset and engage them in our policy-making. • We will enact a neighborhood initiative that will strengthen and support neighborhood associations and their participation in our city planning processes. • We will work to see that our downtown is fully occupied with local and new stores, non-profits, galleries, clubs, restaurants, greenspace and housing - a place that draws our community together all year long. We will continue to foster our downtown as the cultural epicenter of the world’s greatest city for art and the outdoors. We will even address concerns about parking. And more. . . • Plans for the 2008 Olympic Trials will strengthen our tourist capacity, support our economy, and provide opportunities for our community members, young and old. It will enhance the collaborative work of our city and our university. • We will be successful in gaining congressional support for the development of an environmental education center in the wetlands. This project has been on the drawing board for a few years and offers opportunities for students, community members and conferences/tourism. • We will strengthen our relationship with regional partners, respecting our differences while fostering opportunities for working together. • We will work collaboratively and successfully with our regional partners to solve West Eugene traffic problems, improve connectivity and protect the West Eugene Wetlands. • We will see the successful completion of Phase II of the Mayor’s Sustainable Business Initiative and recommendations will be forwarded to the council that will help Eugene become an even more sustainable community. Eugene will support the growth of sustainable products and practices as a key part of its economic development strategy. Through regional and state collaboration, Eugene will become a center of excellence for sustainable practices and products, taking on a statewide leadership role and attracting new business and visitors to our community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 7 State of the City • We will recommit ourselves to Eugene’s Growth Management policies and measure how we are doing to accomplish those policies. The world in which we live While I have talked about what we worked to accomplish and some rather ambitious goals for the year ahead, it is important to acknowledge that we live in a country at war, where many families are making huge sacrifices. We live in a country where our social service infrastructure is being cut, affecting people here at home and across our state. There are too many who struggle to be housed and fed. Health care is harder to access all the time. I hope that former Governor John Kitzhaber will call upon us to support a single-payer system. Something simply has to be done. The gap between the rich and the poor grows. I am proud of our local efforts to provide clinics and stop-gap services for the uninsured. I am saddened that those with mental illness lack services that are so needed. We live in a country where drug addiction affects so many lives and has such a huge impact on our quality of life, social service and public safety systems. We have worked with our regional partners to address these issues but resolution is far away. We will continue to apply the best practices we can locally. We live in a country where our public schools struggle with inadequate funding at all levels. While we are fortunate here in Eugene to have a high quality of education, the challenges grow. The survival of a good public school system seems imperative for a civil and just society and yet it continues to be undercut. Our children depend on us to provide them with the education they need to be prepared for tomorrow. Our institutions of higher education need to be available to all our children or they will be left behind and our society will suffer. The City will partner with our school districts and institutions of higher education whenever we can. You will be asked to continue supporting local measures that fund our schools and our library, the core of our quality of life here in Eugene. We live in a state where Measure 37 brings into question the future of our land use policies and the future of Oregon as we know it. We need to engage in a discussion about the future and all the communities, farms, and natural resources these policies help us protect. We will watch the court decision regarding this important issue and its impact on our city. We live in a larger context of state, national and international policies. Now, more than ever, it is clear that the work we do at home is important. Doing our part for peace, for justice, for access to education, religious freedom, access to healthcare, food, shelter - our part to care for the resources we have so that they are there for the future, for our children and their children – is vital. We are truly fortunate to live here. I know you will join me in continuing to care and act upon that caring. I am so very proud to be your Mayor. VI. MUSICAL SELECTION Those present heard a second musical selection by the Oregon Peace Choir. VII. ADJOURN MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 8 State of the City Mr. Poling thanked those present for coming, and adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 5, 2006 Page 9 State of the City NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council—Work Session DATE OF MEETING: January 23, 2006 TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060123m1.Doc BACKUP STORAGE: Lynn #22 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/31 lt _ Draft to Staff (Date/Initials) 2/21 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 2/21 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/21 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 January 23, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the January 23, 2006, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Poling was ill and unable to attend the meeting. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy read a letter of season’s greetings for 2006 from the mayor of Eugene’s sister city, Jinju, Korea. Ms. Ortiz reported that the group on community standards for the enterprise zone had met and would review how funds from the previous enterprise zone had been used to determine whether new funds could be better used. She said she was working on the Bethel school board’s campaign for an operating levy. She said she found the council’s recent process session helpful. Mr. Kelly reported on the Human Rights Commission’s recent meeting and annual retreat. He said the City recently hired a new diversity consultant, Jason Mak, who was introduced at the meeting. He said part of the meeting was spent on a discussion of outreach strategies for the new city hall complex that would reach communities that might not typically participate, as well as what were important features for a new or renovated city hall from the commission’s perspective. He said there was also a discussion of The Register- Guard’s unwritten policy regarding printing the names of nonbiological parents in birth announcements depending on whether the parents were the same sex. He said the commission voted unanimously to consider the issue and reach out to The Register-Guard. Ms. Taylor announced that the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority was changing its name to the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency and had decided by a unanimous vote to hire its interim manager as the regular manager. She asked if the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project was still under a January 31 deadline. City Manager Taylor replied that the January deadline was still in place and ORI was obtaining appraisal information. He expected to receive an update shortly from ORI on its ability to put together financing for the project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the City’s recent $2 million grant would be available for the ORI project. City Manager Taylor replied that the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative grant funds were available for all development within the downtown area where there were brownfield challenges. Mr. Papé asked in what areas the funds could be used. City Manager Taylor replied that he believed grant funds could be used in the entire downtown but would confirm that with Community Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan. Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of locating the ORI facility in downtown and asked that councilors be kept apprised of the project status. She said she had received many comments regarding the potential use of eminent domain and did not understand why it would be used against businesses that had been in existence for a long time. Mr. Pryor commented that the council’s retreat had been very productive. He said the enterprise zone committee had a preliminary draft of standards that would be subjected to public input, revised by the committee based on the feedback it received and brought to the council for consideration. He said the Human Services Commission’s homeless work group was in the process of coordinating efforts to identify services, budgets and needs and determine how to best apply resources. Mr. Papé expressed his appreciation for the $2 million brownfield grant and said he understood that funds could be used for both downtown urban renewal zones. City Manager Taylor said that was correct. Mr. Papé noted that the council had discussed homeless issues at its November 30, 2005, meeting and asked if problems with respect to library access had been resolved as of January 1, 2006, as promised. City Manager Taylor replied that the Human Rights Commission worked with the City to resolve library issues related to the homeless population and Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Angel Jones would provide a written report on the matter. Mr. Papé said the River Road/Santa Clara transition team was hosting an event on February 4, 2006, at Madison Middle School, inviting area residents to provide input on transition issues. Ms. Bettman asked about the council’s role in budgeting the $2 million brownfield grant. City Manager Taylor said that Mr. Sullivan would include that information in his response. City Manager Taylor thanked the council for its time and attention at its retreat and recognized Julia Novak for her facilitation of the process. He said the retreat produced refinements to the council’s priorities and those would be voted on at the council’s February 13, 2006, meeting. WORK SESSION: Stream Corridor Acquisition Program City Manager Taylor introduced Therese Walch, Water Resource Manager, and Sarah Medary, Natural Resources Manager, to discuss the stream corridor acquisition program and strategies. Ms. Walch said the presentation was in response to the council’s request in October 2005 for an updated acquisition study for reconsideration of an enhanced acquisition program and associated rate increase. She said the program originated with the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSWMP) adopted in 1993 and with the City’s original stormwater discharge permit issued in 1994. She said the current program as reflected in the study came from the Stormwater Department Advisory Committee (DAC) as part of a long-term stormwater capital improvement plan, which included an allocation for stream corridor acquisition MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 2 Work Session at the level of $150,000 per year. She said the DAC felt that level of funding was inadequate and recommended a study to identify high-priority, high-risk sites and a rate increase of $0.50 per medium density residential user and a commensurate increase for other user fee categories to fund acquisition. She related that the council approved the DAC recommendation, refined it during a series of work sessions, and directed staff to proceed with an enhanced acquisition program and rate increase with a three-year sunset provision to fund it. Ms. Walch noted that at the time of the council’s action, the open waterways ordinance had been legally challenged and remanded to the City and was no longer in effect and Goal 5 protection measures were not in effect. She said that a projected budget shortfall beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2005 resulted in the council rescinding its support for the rate increase for an enhanced acquisition program and the funding level reverted to $150,000 per year. Ms. Medary used Map 1 to illustrate the status of priority stream corridors acquisition; sites were identified as City-owned parks and public natural areas, completed acquisitions, sale pending, not available and potentially available. She said that purchased acquisitions represented approximately 36.3 acres of stream corridors or two miles of protected waterways; donations where the owner wanted to remain anonymous were not included. She explained that corridors were typically 150 feet wide and that width was used to correlate miles with acres. She said the remaining potentially available sites were the future of the acquisition program and were priorities based on factors such as steep slopes, highly erodible soils, connectivity, significant natural resources, high proportion of corridor undeveloped, potential for water quality and additional benefits and potential for leveraging financial resources. She said that staff would continue to have discussions with property owners as sites became available Ms. Walch reviewed Map 2 which identified the relationship between the 6.7 miles of waterways remaining that were potentially available for acquisition and the Goal 5 protected waterways, as well as waterways being considered by the stormwater program for protection for water quality. She pointed out that nearly all of the remaining stream corridor miles potentially available for acquisition were protected from encroach- ment by Goal 5 provisions with buffer setbacks ranging from 20 to 100 feet, although there were some developments to which Goal 5 protection measures would not apply as applications were submitted prior to November 2005. She said there was a varied level of stream protection in each of those developments. She indicated that the proposed stormwater program waterway protection measures were projected to come before the council in November 2006; the difference between those measures and Goal 5 protections was that the stormwater measures were focused on water quality, not wildlife habitat. Continuing, Ms. Walch raised programmatic and financial issues related to the acquisition program. She said an annual increase to stormwater user fees on the order of two to three percent would be required to maintain current service levels. She said that implementing stormwater development standards and other permit-related items approved by the council last year would equate to approximately a 3.5 percent rate increase and the council would consider in February 2006 shifting a portion of the funding for the street trees program from the Road Fund to the Stormwater Fund to help ensure long-term stability for transporta- tion systems operations and maintenance. She said there were other developments in the stormwater program that might have future financial impacts but the degree was not known: implementation of the River Road/Santa Clara stormwater basin plan and resolution of the issue of ongoing use of dry wells and finalization by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of draft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Willamette River watershed. She said options for the council included: 1. Continue to fund the acquisition program at the current level of $150,000 per year, or 2. Increase stormwater user fees by $0.50 and pursue a more aggressive stream corridor acquisition program MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Walch said staff recommended the first option as there was some protection for those waterways from Goal 5 and future stormwater program measures and there were other demands on the stormwater fund, such as maintaining the service level, permit related items, and future unknowns. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Ms. Taylor said her assumption was that any development near streams would add to pollution problems. Ms. Walch referred to the October 2005 work session during which the council approved conceptually staff moving forward with stormwater development standards. She said those standards, to be considered by the council in February or March, would address the water quality of runoff from new development and significant redevelopment. Ms. Taylor asked if the Amazon headwaters were already poor quality in terms of temperature and TDML. Ms. Walch agreed that some water quality standards were exceeded in Amazon Creek. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Walch said that an offer on the Beverly property had been rejected and, in the Nectar-Dillard area, an offer on the Joe Green property had been turned down. Ms. Taylor asked if the use of eminent domain had been considered. Ms. Medary said the policy was to work with willing sellers and the council would have to direct the use of eminent domain. Mr. Kelly remarked that the council approved in 2001 a program to acquire about 170 acres over the next seven years, of which 36 acres had been acquired to date, leaving well over 100 acres yet to be acquired. He noted that the proposed increase of two to three percent equated to $0.15 to $0.20 per month for the average ratepayer. He asked if there was a significant amount of biological difference between the 75-foot setback on each side of a stream in the corridor acquisition program and the 40-foot setback under Goal 5 protection. Ms. Walch said there was a significant difference in water quality functionality between a stream corridor that was 80 feet wide and one that was 150 feet wide. Ms. Solomon thanked staff for the explanation of existing protections on streams and said she would reluctantly support the staff recommendation of the first option. She repeated her concern about the City continuing to acquire property and remove it from the tax roll, thereby decreasing revenue to fund important services. She said that discussions about buying property never included a parallel discussion of what property on the City’s inventory might be given up. Mr. Pryor said the issue of maintaining water quality through the acquisition program was persuasive as was the need to maintain service levels. He said if he had to choose a priority he was inclined to support maintaining service levels because of the importance of ensuring that the current system was operating effectively. He said there was already an acquisition program in place, although perhaps not at the level the council would like, but it was a balance between acquisition and service provision and maintaining water quality. Ms. Bettman said she supported the second option. She commented that the amount of 170 acres was a reduction from the original CWSMP recommendations for infrastructure acquisition. She regretted that the City had moved toward buying large parcels and using them to create parks instead of simply acquiring the stream corridors for protection. She said once green infrastructure was acquired, there was a 20 percent reduction in the cost of maintenance over pipe and fill. She said it appeared that over four-and-a-half years $1.2 million was spent on 36.3 acres and one-third of that expenditure was for staff time to negotiate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked how conservation easements fit into the discussion and whether they would be a more efficient way to protect the functional value of the waterway without having to spend so much money or create an unbuildable lot for a land owner. Ms. Walch agreed that negotiations were costly; often a property owner preferred to negotiate on the entire parcel instead of just the stream corridor or wanted to get far enough along in the development review process to ensure they could still develop the property in the manner they wished. She said it was one of the realities of the program that those types of negotiations took considerable amounts of staff time. She said options for conservation easements were kept open but every situation was different; in effect a conservation easement meant the same thing to the property owner as right-of-way acquisition in terms of building on that portion of the site. Ms. Medary clarified that the acquisition program had only purchased stream corridors and not large parcels. Mr. Papé asked if there were any savings associated with a conservation easement. City Manager Taylor replied that it depended on the status of the development review process; if there was development pending it helped the seller know what could be done with the property but also influenced the relative value of the portion the City wanted to acquire as part of the stormwater management program. Ms. Walch added there were situations where the development review process resulted in a certain amount of protection and the City desired additional protection for water quality purposes. She said that might or might not render the property undevelopable, which significantly affected the acquisition price. Mr. Papé asked if there were instances where 150 feet were salvaged from a development and that development continued. Ms. Walch said that happened more often with the stream corridor was acquired on a vacant parcel and development occurred later. Mr. Papé asked for information on the best and worst water quality coming from the basin shown on maps 1 and 2. Ms. Walch said she would provide a response based on water quality data. Mr. Papé asked for clarification of the proposed rate increase. Ms. Walch said that a two to three percent increase, if the average residential user paid approximately $7.40 per month, resulted in an increase of $0.15 to $0.20 per month per residential user. She said the $0.50 increase discussed earlier was a previous council recommendation in 2001 to fund the enhanced acquisition program, but it was never implemented. City Manager Taylor said there was a backlog of funding from the initial implementation and when the time approached to implement the $0.50 for stream corridor access, the City was also facing a decision to raise fees or cut back the program and council’s direction was to make $2 million in cuts. He said a major unknown factor at the time was the impact of permit renewal; that process was under way and the council had agreed to add $327,000 worth of annualized costs. It appeared there would be costs in addition to that, plus the two to three percent increase to maintain the current level of service. Mr. Papé asked if there were any full parcels of land where the stream corridor could be retained by the City and the remainder of the parcel sold. Ms. Medary said that the only full parcels were those that had been purchased in concert with parks, recreation and open space bond money or donated by a property owner for that purpose. Mayor Piercy asked if properties on the list for potential acquisition were prioritized so that if there were several opportunities, staff would know which to pursue first. Ms. Medary said the original priority stream corridors were designated as tier 1, 2, 3 or 4, but the current map did not include those designations. She said the reality of the situation was that opportunities arose infrequently and there was not generally a conflict in choosing which to pursue. Mayor Piercy urged that the corridors be prioritized in order to guide acquisition decisions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly asked what type of protection the proposed water quality protection ordinance to be considered by the council later in the year would provide. Ms. Walch said staff was looking at protection measures on some of the waterways not covered by Goal 5 that were directly connected to the Willamette River or other water quality limited streams. She said the focus was on protection for streams that were water quality limited and possibly additional protection in the headwaters area for streams that would be subject to inclusion in the implementation of the upper Willamette TDML. She said protection would likely be a setback, possibly beyond the Goal 5 setback, and might also include additional management measures related to water quality. Mr. Kelly noted that the proposed water quality protection ordinance was a land use decision and subject to appeal and therefore implementation was some distance in the future. He said he would likely support an alternative for an increase as the best way to protect property was to purchase it. He thought the public would understand the purpose of a rate increase and agree with it. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to con- tinue to fund the stream corridor acquisition program at the current level (approxi- mately $150,000 per year) and to continue to negotiate with property owners on priority stream corridor sites as identified in the October 2001 Study as opportuni- ties arise and as funds allow. Speaking to the motion, Ms. Solomon said the option was reasonable and doable and gave the City a program of which it could be proud. She said information provided by staff convinced her that between the acquisition program, Goal 5 protection and proposed protections for water quality, the necessary standards were in place. She was not certain that the public would understand a rate increase for stream corridor acquisition when there were potholes in roads that were not being repaired. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by substituting the following language: direct the City Manager to increase stormwater user fees by $0.30 for medium density residential users and commensurate increase for other user fee categories to fund an enhanced stream corridor acquisition program. Speaking to the motion, Ms. Bettman said that stormwater conveyance and flood control was a City utility and the major study and planning process associated with CSWMP discussed converting to green infrastruc- ture where possible. She said that green infrastructure was the most cost-effective and environmentally sound standard of practice to pursue. She said the program had been so scaled back that in the last four- and-a-half years only 36.3 acres out of 170 acres had been acquired. She hoped staff would also consider conservation easements and other options to protect corridors for their functional values of flood control, filtration and conveyance. Ms. Taylor moved to amend Ms. Bettman’s motion by substituting $0.50 for $0.30. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor said she was frustrated that the decision to increase the rate by $0.50 several years ago was never implemented. She was also frustrated by discussion of compromising on water quality as that was a necessity and not subject to compromise. She said it would be less expensive to take action now to protect streams than to clean them up later. Mr. Papé asked how DEQ differentiated between point source pollution and non-point source pollution entry into the Willamette River and measures that were imposed on Eugene compared to farmers downstream. Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffier replied that DEQ had limited authority for non-point sources of MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 6 Work Session pollutants and most of those were handled through Senate Bill 1010 agricultural water quality plans or under the Forest Practices Act. He said that under the TMDL process, limits on waste load allocations were established but implemented through different programs. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Papé said it appeared that Eugene could be asked to cut back more than it was proportionately required to if accurate measurements were not available for non-point sources. Mr. Ruffier agreed that was possible. Mr. Papé asked how much in additional funding Ms. Bettman’s motion would represent. City Manager Taylor replied that it would provide approximately $300,000 in additional resources to the stormwater acquisition program, bringing it to a total of approximately $450,000 per year. Ms. Ortiz said she would support Ms. Bettman’s motion as she was disappointed that the City had not moved more quickly to acquire waterways in the past. She asked if the increased funding would result in all of the necessary properties being acquired within a certain period of time. She also asked if there were other acquisitions that might be necessary in the future or if the City would eventually be able to reverse the increase. Ms. Medary said that the timeframe for acquisitions depended on owners’ willingness to sell and as long as the program continued on a willing seller basis it was not possible to predict when all acquisitions would be completed. Mr. Pryor said while it would be good to have extra funds in the acquisition program he would vote against the substitute motion because it was only money for acquisition and not for infrastructure or other service needs. He thought there were still unanswered questions regarding easements versus acquisitions and councilors did not know for certain how voters would react. He preferred to be cautious about raising fees. Ms. Solomon asked if eliminating the phrase “willing seller” in Ms. Bettman’s motion was intentional. Ms. Bettman repeated her motion and said that the issue of a willing seller was up to the negotiating team, not her. Mr. Papé asked if the increased funding could be directed primarily or entirely to acquisition instead of staff costs. Ms. Walch replied that the staff costs associated with negotiations would still exist and was typically about one-third of the total cost because of the amount of time. Mr. Kelly remarked that any acquisition without a willing seller would have to come back to the council for an explicit resolution. Ms. Taylor asked if using eminent domain would reduce staff time. City Manager Taylor replied that staff time might be reduced but eminent domain would significantly increase the cost of the property and set the program back in its acquisition of priority sites. The motion to amend by substituting language passed, 5:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed, 5:2: Ms. Solomon and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 7 Work Session WORK SESSION: West Eugene Transportation Status Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson reported that since the council’s October 2005 work session, staff had been working on West Eugene transportation issues and there had been numerous discussions with the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), chief administrative officers of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) member jurisdictions and agencies. He said at the January 12, 2006, MPC meeting, tacit agreement was reached to proceed with a facilitated discussion within the current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). He said the City was proposing to split the estimated $50,000 cost of the facilitated discussion with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). He said the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution would provide a facilitator for the process and the next step was a collaborative effort with MPC partners to select a facilitator. Continuing, Mr. Carlson said the facilitator would assess the situation by reviewing materials, interviewing all stakeholders and determining how the process should go forward, including a formal facilitated dialogue with stakeholders. He expected the facilitator would be selected in 45 days, the process would occur in the spring, the technical reports would be done in February 2006, and a record of decision would be available by the end of 2006. He said MPC members identified representatives for the selection committee: Anne Ballew, City of Springfield; Faye Stewart, Lane County; Gerry Gaydos, Lane Transit District; Jane Lee, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); Emily Lawton, FHWA; and Mayor Piercy, City of Eugene. Mayor Piercy reviewed actions resulting from the October 2005 work session: ? A council motion directing its MPC representatives, Mayor Piercy and Mr. Kelly, to oppose the inclusion of the WEP as a transportation priority project in the 2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) ? A council motion directing the City Manager to consult with intergovernmental partners and com- munity organizations to commence a scoping process to design and build transportation projects in West Eugene to address congestion, safety and operation of all modes of transportation ? A vote by Eugene’s MPC representatives at the November 2005 MPC meeting to move forward all transportation projects into the 2007 MTIP except for the WEP ? MPC members could not agree to remove the WEP from the list of transportation priorities and there was no agreement on the 2007 MTIP, which did not move forward ? The current MTIP with the WEP included remains in place until August 2007 when it sunsets ? A collaborative process with all stakeholders to look seriously at WEP alternatives was suggested by Mayor Piercy ? FHWA agreed to a collaborative process within the timeframe of the ongoing NEPA process after technical work had been completed and before the community forum and record of decision ? Eugene’s MPC representatives voted to support one of the slated 2007 MTIP projects that was time sensitive at the December 2005 MPC meeting and proposed the collaborative process ? Information and materials about the collaborative process were presented at the January 2006 MPC meeting and members were invited to participate in the process and selection of a facilitator ? Eugene’s MPC representatives voted to support six more time sensitive transportation projects into the current MTIP Mayor Piercy said that the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution agreed to assist with the process because it believed there was a possibility of successfully finding solutions to the long-term community impasse, but was clear that the process proposed by the FHWA was not truly collaborative because of the constraints of staying within the NEPA timeframe and purpose and need. She said the process could only be termed an assessment report and possible series of stakeholder meetings, but the institute still felt it could be MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 8 Work Session helpful and possibly lead to a full collaborative process. She said in addition to the individuals named by Mr. Carlson, representatives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Bureau of Land Management would also participate on the facilitator selection panel. She said that once the facilitator completed the assessment report, a decision would be made about whether facilitated stakeholder meetings were appropriate. She thanked federal and regional partners and interested community members for their cooperation and hoped it was the beginning of a sincere effort to find solutions. Mayor Piercy solicited questions and comments from the council. Mr. Kelly commented that not only was there no formal vote at the last MPC meeting but he was not certain that everyone left with the same understanding of what would happen next. He said a majority of MPC members demonstrated a begrudging willingness to listen to the next step. He felt the terms “facilitated discussion” and “collaborative process” should be clarified as only a collaborative process was likely to produce a result on which a majority could agree. He said that a facilitated discussion did not demand the same degree of participation. Mayor Piercy said the institute regarded a collaborative process as one that had no end date specified, participants worked on an issue until some type of agreement was reached, and ideally everyone felt that at least some of their interests had been met. She said that was not the process currently being considered. Mr. Pryor was pleased that seven transportation projects were moved forward. He expressed concern as a Ward 8 representative about the timelines for the new process given that the WEP debate had been going on for 20 years. He asked if there was any estimate for how long the new direction might take as traffic problems in west Eugene continued to increase on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. He said that whatever happened should happen quickly. Mayor Piercy said that FHWA intended that the process would be completed by December 2006 and would make a record of decision on the environmental impact study (EIS). Mr. Pryor asked what the results of the record of decision might be. Mayor Piercy said the record of decision would conclude with a build or no-build determination on the WEP. She said a no-build determina- tion could precipitate a new discussion. Ms. Bettman said she could not support the suggested motion as stated. She said the council directed its MPC representatives to not move forward with an MTIP and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that contained the WEP but the current MTIP and STIP both contained the WEP and new projects as well. She said the council asked intergovernmental partners and community organizations to commence a process to design and build transportation projects in west Eugene to address congestion, safety and operation for all modes. She said instead she saw a long process that was not collaborative but rather a facilitated dialogue that was not different from the old processes. She asked if the alternatives for solving West Eugene transportation issues within the current environmental review process would be constrained by the purpose and need. Mr. Carlson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bettman asked if the breadth of the assessment report would also be constrained by the purpose and need. Mr. Carlson replied that it would be but noted the assessment was more about whether there was willingness on the part of all parties to proceed with a discussion of alternatives than it was about the project itself. He indicated the alternatives would address the purpose and need of the EIS. Ms. Bettman stated that currently the only thing that would satisfy the purpose and need of the EIS was the WEP and if the process was constrained by the purpose and need in the existing EIS there was only one MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 9 Work Session outcome and it was the WEP. She expressed concern that the only collaboration in a facilitated dialogue process would be selection of the facilitator. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue completion of the assessment report via the US Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution and bring it back to the council for review and approval. Mayor Piercy solicited questions and comments on the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mayor Piercy explained that the facilitator would be chosen by the panel she and Mr. Carlson had identified and the facilitator would then reach out to all stakeholders, conduct an assessment and produce a report that would be brought back to all of the MPC members in the spring. She said there would then be a decision about whether to move forward. Mr. Papé asked if there was an estimate of cost in terms of dollars and staff time. Mr. Carlson said the current estimate of cost for the process was $50,000, which would be equally split between the City of Eugene and FHWA; the assessment phase was a smaller part of that and would cost approximately $12- 15,000. He said that very little staff time would be involved as the institute would be conducting the process. Mr. Papé asked if the council was willing to enter into the process and accept the outcome. He did not want to risk the City’s resources unless the council was willing to accept whatever recommendation came out of the process. Mr. Kelly asserted that it was dangerous to give an ironclad yes or no answer to any question regarding the process and he was disturbed that there was a work session on the issue because traditionally a work session was not held unless there was a new significant decision point and that had not occurred. He said because there was still disagreement between Eugene’s MPC representatives and ODOT and perhaps other partners on how the process would form, it was premature to state it was absolutely constrained by the purpose and need. He said the FHWA was liberally interpreting purpose and need and there could be a new purpose and need required by the ACOE. He said he would support the motion as it would achieve the assessment in a fairly short period of time and stakeholders would then be able to decide if there was a basis on which to move forward. Ms. Taylor remarked that she did not see how the process would produce results as the council had voted not to proceed with the parkway and pursue other solutions, while the other jurisdictions had not changed their positions. She did not see how a facilitator could help the situation and she was not willing to say the council would abide by any result. Ms. Bettman said the assessment report was a discrete portion of the process and would inform the council on whether there was a collaborative process in the future and whether it would be productive. She asked staff and the council’s MPC representatives to review TransPlan and the projects that were “futured” by inclusion of the WEP and formulate a strategy for getting those into the MTIP and STIP if the assessment report indicated a collaborative process was unlikely. She asked staff to research whether there was an updated purpose and need and provide a copy to the council if there was a new version. She contended that when the WEP was included in the Regional Transportation Plan by the MPC, the scope and function of the project was changed and the newly defined project was outside the purpose and need definition. Mr. Papé said he could not support either the suggested motion or Ms. Bettman’s motion as the public had voted against exploring alternatives to the WEP. He said he could not in good conscience maintain his MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 10 Work Session integrity as a public official by considering alternatives without asking voters if they wished to reverse their 2001 decision. Mr. Pryor said the vagaries of the situation made it very difficult and there was a lack of clarity about what to do next and which process would move stakeholders forward expeditiously. He agreed with Mr. Papé that it was no longer certain what the public wanted, but his opinion was that the 2001 vote should stand until the voters told the council differently. He said public policy decisions were being made on what the council thought the public wanted and there should be better definition. He was considering supporting Ms. Bettman’s motion as it was limited and could move the process to a more productive point. He asked why a work session had been scheduled on the issue. Mayor Piercy stated that she had requested a work session in order to provide the council with an update on the process. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of questions and comments on the motion. Mr. Kelly said the assessment called for in Ms. Bettman’s motion would provide an assemblage of facts that could help clarify the situation and was a short-term effort. He said if the WEP alternatives vote in 2001 was considered, the vote on the WEP should also be considered as the project that was voted on was significantly different than its current conception. Regarding Mr. Papé’s question about whether the council was prepared to abide by the collaborative process, he said that was tantamount to agreeing to support a certain outcome in a land use decision before the hearing was held. He said when that question was raised at the MPC meeting other members had similar concerns. City Manager Taylor remarked that considerable progress had been made in carrying out the council’s direction in October 2005 to consult with partners and community organizations and scope out a plan. He was gratified by the connection with FHWA and over the course of months as the process was explained, progress had been made to engage the key stakeholders in a fundamental first step. He said the City’s support of time sensitive MTIP projects demonstrated its willingness to work with partners and he was hopeful that all of those small steps would lead to a more informed discussion in the future. He hoped that Ms. Bettman’s motion included the spirit of the motion and the direction given to him by the council on October 26, 2005. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé voting in opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 11 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: January 25, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060125m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: Ruth #33 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 2/10/06rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 2/14 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 2/14 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 2/21 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 2/22 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 25, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Measure 37 Givings Tax The council was joined for the item by City Attorney Glenn Klein. City Manager Dennis Taylor compli- mented staff on the work done on this item. He noted that Ballot Measure 37 led the City into uncharted territory and it was difficult to know how to proceed. Mr. Klein reviewed four options for collecting a tax or a charge to create a fund to pay compensation claims, outlined in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and attachments A through D. Option 1—Tax on ‘upzonings’ Option 2—Tax on City investment Option 3—Tax on increase from legislative change Option 4—Tax on capital gains Mr. Klein noted that Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy called for questions and comments from the council. Ms. Bettman complimented Mr. Klein and Ms. Cutsogeorge on the clarity of the materials in the AIS. She disagreed with the staff recommendation to do nothing at this time. She indicated she was not interested in the second option, which would utilize a tax on increased property values brought about by a local investment by the City. She also would not support the fourth option, which would tax the difference between a property’s purchase price and its current worth after improvements. She supported further exploration of options 1 and 3, however. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 25, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor thought the exercise pointed to the need for more revenue, tax reform, and new sources of revenue. She said the only option she could support was the first one, which would tax increases in property value brought about by changes in zoning or designation of a property. She felt a property owner would only request such a change if he or she was seeking to improve the value of the property. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Klein to provide an example of a legislative change that would increase value, as addressed in the third option. Mr. Klein explained that if the code currently restricted height in a commer- cial zone to 20 feet and the height limitation was increased to 100 feet, some properties could increase in value because a person could build a much larger structure on a particular land parcel. Ms. Taylor remarked that it seemed that this option could tax people who were not benefiting from a legislative change. Mr. Kelly agreed that the materials before the council were very thorough and informative. He reiterated that the City could face “millions of dollars in potential liability” in Ballot Measure 37 claims. He averred that the City had to find a way to pay for those claims. He thought the alternative would be that the City would have to eliminate much of its land use management. He also supported the first option and opposed the second and fourth options. He thought the third option bore further examination. He likened it to a capital gains tax which was only exacted when a sale of stocks or other large properties were realized. He recognized that dealing with approximately 50,000 properties added a level of complexity to the third option, but pointed out that the property tax system dealt with a large number of properties every year. He thought the City could potentially utilize the property tax assessor’s office as a resource should the third option be chosen. Mr. Pryor asked how many Measure 37 claims the City currently faced. Mr. Klein replied that two claims had been filed, but one was not going forward because the property owner agreed to place it on hold pending the Supreme Court decision and the other would likely go away administratively. Mr. Pryor asked if it was known how soon the decision from the Supreme Court would be rendered. Mr. Klein guessed that it would be known in the summer, though it could be anywhere from two weeks to two years. Mr. Pryor did not sense an enormous amount of Measure 37 activity going on at the moment. He did not think it prudent to create a system that could potentially assess people for increases in property values in advance of the decision. He appreciated the arguments against the second and fourth options and agreed with them. He shared some councilors’ hesitance to support the third option because of the number of properties involved and the cost to the City. He felt that what the City could gain in money might not even compensate for what it would pay out in fees and assessments. He predicted it would be expensive. He also was not enamored with the first option. He said it would charge property owners twice. He pointed out that when property values increased, property taxes were the mechanism to receive compensation for such an increase. He thought charging again for property value increases could be perceived as “double-dipping.” He preferred to table all of the options at present. He underscored that if a Measure 37 issue arose that was significant, real, and of concern to the City the council could always bring the conversation back. At present, however, he did not see the need. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor. She agreed that the discussion was premature and there was no need to waste resources on it at this time. Mayor Piercy indicated her agreement with Mr. Pryor as well. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 25, 2006 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Klein stated that the Metropolitan Service District (Portland area) was looking into something akin to the first option but the fee or tax would be triggered by urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion. He affirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, that a property brought into the UGB despite the property owner’s opposition would still be taxed. Mr. Klein said property experienced approximately a five-fold to ten-fold increase in value when it was moved inside the UGB around the Portland area. He explained that Metro was looking at a number of options, such as overlooking the first 100 percent increase in value and taxing a percentage of the increase above that. Mr. Papé added his kudos to staff for the clarity and thoroughness of the materials in the AIS. He noted his agreement that some tax reform was needed in the state. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City take no additional action on a givings tax at this time. Ms. Bettman thought it unfortunate that the word ‘tax’ was being used. She said the fees were supposed to create a fund to help enable the City pay for Measure 37 claims. She believed the proposed fees were not so much to pay claims that would come to the City as they were a way to enable the City to regulate develop- ment in the future. She did not think the City could ignore the impact that Measure 37 would have on planning. She averred that the issue was to have the resources available so that as the City moved forward in planning, it would be known that the City had the resources to pay claims that could result from land use changes impacting people in a negative way. She felt it was future-thinking and pro-active to do so as the outcome of the Measure 37 litigation was not known. Mr. Kelly disagreed that action would be premature given the length of time it took to work on the underpinnings of an ordinance. He maintained that doing nothing at this point was not an option. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Man- ager to study options 1 and 3 in more detail, including completing a proposed analysis of the tax/fee amount and economic consequences and that the City Manager would return to the City Council with focused decisions to be made around implementation of such an ordi- nance. Mr. Kelly suggested staff look at what the council had done since the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) was enacted and review what sorts of things would fall under the third option and how they would be affected. City Manager Taylor explained the rationale for his recommendation. He underscored that there were always more weighty things to accomplish than there were resources to accomplish them. He took the council’s priority setting as a way to ascertain which tasks should rise to the top. He said when looking at the administrative costs and the time and resources to implement a fee in the face of the likelihood of litigation, it seemed more prudent to wait. He averred that the City wanted to be “on the leading edge and not the bleeding edge.” He pointed to the issues of smoking, Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) reform, and telecommunications as examples of the City taking the lead on issues. He felt that the Measure 37 issue could wait until staff and the council could get clarity with regard to the legal environment before putting the time and resources into fleshing out one of the two options preferred by council. Ms. Taylor also wished to commend staff on the materials. She said she was less opposed to the third option after hearing discussion of some kind of triggering mechanism. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 25, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Klein asked the maker of the motion if his intention was that the third option would include a trigger as opposed to all 50,000 affected properties. He noted that the analysis that staff would have to go through, including consultants that would need to be hired, would be very different. Mr. Kelly indicated his comfort with making this explicit. Ms. Bettman agreed. Ms. Taylor indicated her support for the motion. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for the materials. She did not believe that the council and staff could afford to do nothing. She felt that doing nothing was not an effective form of planning in this instance. Mr. Papé agreed that it was good to be prepared. He asked how many cities were involved in Measure 37 claims. Mr. Klein responded that he had conducted a survey for the League of Oregon Cities there had been approximately 15 cities and approximately 50 claims. He said there were now around 3,000 claims statewide and the vast majority of them were rural. Mr. Papé surmised that Mr. Pryor’s point had some merit. He agreed that there was a lack of certainty that Measure 37 would create a problem. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the City relied on the County for land evaluation. He said to implement Option 1 would require City staff to do much work. He was concerned, given that he and staff were in the final phases of crafting a budget to recommend to the council for fiscal year (FY) 2007, about meeting the council priorities and supporting the current levels of service. He was not sure how staff could do all of the other things that the council had added to “the plate” by its action over the last year. He questioned the level of return the investment would provide. He did not believe that it would justify the amount of staff and consultant time. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Klein said the City would need appraiser expertise to conduct the evaluation required by option 3. He reiterated that the City would need consultant assistance for development of options 1 and 3. Mr. Papé predicted that option 3 would have multiple legal ramifications if brought into play. In response to Mr. Papé, Mr. Klein affirmed that it was not yet known whether a waiver would be transferable with the sale of a property. He noted that the Supreme Court would not likely address that question, given that it had not been raised in the proceedings. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman agreed that consultants and an appraiser would be needed to resolve Measure 37 issues. She found the City Manager’s position to be inconsistent as she believed these costs would be incurred and the City was “forced to do something.” She likened doing nothing to “averting our eyes from responsibility.” Mr. Kelly thought it could be six more months before the framework for options 1 and 3 would be completed and by then, the Supreme Court decision would likely be known. Mr. Kelly admonished the City Manager not to speak of a return on the investment without having conducted a fiscal analysis. The amendment passed, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 25, 2006 Page 4 Work Session The motion passed, as amended, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in op- position. B. WORK SESSION: Report and Update on Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority City Manager Taylor said he hoped it was the last time the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) would provide a report, given that the organization was soliciting agreement to change its name. He noted that Interim Director Merlyn Hough had been permanently appointed to the position. Ms. Taylor, having served on the LRAPA Board for nine years, introduced Mr. Hough. She stated that he had served the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for 31 years. She suggested that he would be a good person to explain the difference between the DEQ and LRAPA. Mr. Hough introduced the board members from LRAPA who were present. He said LRAPA wished to change its name. He noted that the LRAPA board had approved the name change, but the member jurisdictions had to concur with the change. He stated that the board had been developing a vision statement, refining its mission statement, and updating the strategic plan for the agency. He related the new vision statement: “Community partners working together to ensure clean air for everyone.” Mr. Hough highlighted the overriding goals of the agency, as follows: 1) Ensuring healthful air quality for all Lane County citizens; 2) Involvement in forming an evolving citizens and stakeholders’ service; 3) Serving citizens and stakeholders well; 4) Trying to make the best use of combined resources for solving community problems. Mr. Hough related that when going through this process, several board members questioned whether the agency’s name was descriptive of the current role of LRAPA. He said the idea of authority seemed narrow and the idea of an agency seemed broader. Pollution had been deemed to represent more of the negative part of LRAPA, while ‘protection’ was a more positive part. He stated that there had been a desire to retain the acronym. The end result had been a proposal to change the name to the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. Mayor Piercy conveyed her appreciation for the work that had been done and for the mission and goals. She called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Ortiz thanked the members of LRAPA for coming to the meeting. She averred it was good that LRAPA existed to help monitor and educate businesses that impacted air quality. She said her constituents had been affected by air quality issues. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Hough to respond to suggestions that the DEQ could do the work of LRAPA. Mr. Hough held the DEQ in a high regard and said he considered the department to be a key partner in LRAPA’s mission and goals. He stated that in looking at goals, LRAPA had the ability to provide a greater level of service than the DEQ. He cited the recent work LRAPA and a neighborhood had done with the J.H. Baxter Company to mitigate neighborhood air quality as an example of the type of close collaborative work in which the local agency was able to participate. He noted that the neighborhood groups had been very helpful in addressing the issue and helping to monitor air quality. He said there had been much progress in MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 25, 2006 Page 5 Work Session that situation. He stated that the DEQ was spread over the entire state and did not have the same resources per capita. Mr. Hough said, in response to Mr. Kelly, that the city of Eugene had more air monitoring stations and more real-time data than the rest of the state. He indicated that a citizen could check the LRAPA Web site and access the information. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hough stated that there were four real-time monitoring stations and there were other stations that provided weather data. Mr. Kelly thought the west side industrial area would be a good location for a monitoring station. Mr. Hough responded that a filter sampler was located in the Four Corners area. Mr. Papé wished Mr. Hough good luck in his permanent position. He asked what management philosophy Mr. Hough planned on using for addressing both internal and external affairs. Mr. Hough replied that a key part of what he hoped to do was to ensure that priorities and goals were clear and that everyone had an important role in accomplishing this mission. Regarding the board, Mr. Hough averred that the strength of it lay in its diversity and that the different viewpoints brought to the table made a healthy process. He noted that the board reached some decisions with unanimity and others by a narrower margin. Mr. Papé asked what jurisdictions LRAPA oversaw. Mr. Hough replied that it covered all of Lane County and had five partner jurisdictions. Mr. Papé surmised that all of the jurisdictions wished to retain LRAPA. He wondered if, as it evolved, it was time to look at a governance model that included Junction City, Florence, Creswell, and other smaller jurisdictions. Mr. Hough responded that the smaller jurisdictions would be welcome to participate. Mr. Papé asked if Florence paid a fee for LRAPA work. Mr. Hough explained that the funding came through the County. He noted that LRAPA members met with Lane County Commissioner Anna Morrison, who represented the Florence area. Ms. Bettman asked if the intergovernmental agreement amendment for the name change had any other provisions in it. Mr. Hough replied that it was for the name change only. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the loss of the word ‘authority’ could translate into an actual loss of authority. Mr. Hough responded that the name change had no effect. He felt that calling it an agency recognized the broader scope of the work in which LRAPA was now involved. Ms. Bettman asked if the name change would change the purpose of LRAPA. Mr. Hough replied that it would not. He stated that it would underscore the commitment to the vision of providing healthful air quality for everyone in Lane County. Ms. Taylor called the change ‘good.’ She emphasized that there had been no dissension among board members regarding the change. Mayor Piercy said she was very interested in the issues of climate change and carbon emissions and how the City could work with LRAPA toward the goal of reducing emissions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 25, 2006 Page 6 Work Session City Manager Taylor remarked that he was gratified to hear that LRAPA wanted its fair share of state-wide DEQ resources. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between Lane County and the cities of Cot- tage Grove, Eugene, Oakridge, and Springfield which changes the name of the agency from the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority to the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. Mr. Hough indicated his hope that LRAPA could come before the council on an annual basis to report on its work. The meeting adjourned at 1:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 25, 2006 Page 7 Work Session