Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/23/06 Work Session 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 2 Work Session 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 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: MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 3 Work Session 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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 4 Work Session 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 5 Work Session 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 6 Work Session 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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 7 Work Session 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. 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 8 Work Session ? 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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 9 Work Session 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 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 10 Work Session 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 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 11 Work Session 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 12 Work Session