Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: June 22, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2009, Work Session, April 22, 2009, Work Session, April 27, 2009, City Council Meeting, April 29, 2009, Work Session, May 13, 2009, Work Session, May 18, 2009, Executive Session, May 18, 2009, Work Session, May 26, 2009, Executive Session, and May 26, 2009, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.April 13, 2009, Work Session B.April 22, 2009, Work Session C.April 27, 2009, City Council Meeting D.April 29, 2009, Work Session E.May 13, 2009, Work Session F.May 18, 2009, Executive Session G.May 18, 2009, Work Session H.May 26, 2009, Executive Session I.May 26, 2009, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090622\S0906222A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon April 13, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Clark would join the meeting at 6:35 p.m. to participate in the council’s discussion of a complaint against the Police Auditor. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Piercy reported that she had delivered the welcoming address at the conference of Oregon police chiefs. She met with Representative Peter DeFazio to discuss transportation land use planning and with youth from the New Roads program to discuss their issues and concerns. She participated in a round table with mayors from other local jurisdictions. Ms. Solomon attended a Human Services Commission subcommittee meeting on budget issues as the commis- sion moved into its budget cycle. Mr. Brown reported that he attended a meeting of the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) Economic Development subcommittee. Mr. Poling said the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) discussed HB 2865, related to collection of SDCs (system development charges) at time of occupancy but did not take a position. He wanted to support the legislation and would bring the matter up at the council’s regular meeting. Mr. Pryor reported on the Housing Policy Board meeting and the West Eugene EmX Extension Corridor Committee. The corridor committee had received a presentation by the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC). He said the WEC was making presentations throughout the metropolitan area and would be at the council’s April 27 meeting. He attended the police chief conference breakfast and commended Acting Police Chief Pete Kerns and Captain Steve Swenson for hosting the event. Ms. Ortiz attended meetings of the Civilian Review Board and Human Rights Commission and several open houses, including one for the improvement project on Elmira and Maple roads. She also attended a meeting sponsored by Lane County Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to discuss the biomass operation at Seneca. She described a presentation on the Neighborhood Empowerment Plan at the Whiteaker Community Council. Ms. Taylor said it was great news that Lord Leebrick Theater had purchased a building downtown on Broadway. She received complaints on several items, including street assessments, which she felt were unjust, retaining blackberry bushes along Amazon Creek and the secret vote related to the Police Auditor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka stated he attended a meeting of the Sustainability Commission and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He complimented the University of Oregon and the construction company building the new arena for respecting agreements with the neighborhood and minimizing the impact of construction activities. He said Lane County would receive approximately $6.5 million in federal economic stimulus funds and the MPC had identified priority road projects to receive funding. He said the MPC also received a presentation from the WEC, which was very interesting. Ms. Piercy commented that she joined Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken and Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson in issuing a press advisory about the collaboration of all three jurisdictions on economic development. She announced that the City of Eugene was recognized on Arbor Day for its urban forestry program. City Manager Jon Ruiz thanked Urban Forester Mark Snyder for his dedication to maintaining the City’s trees. He noted the WEC would make a presentation to the council on April 27 and the Budget Committee would meet on April 15 to discuss the General Fund deficit and financial forecasts. He announced that $250,000 in urban renewal loan funds for gap financing had enabled Kesey Enterprises to purchase the McDonald Theater building. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mike Sullivan, Community Development Division, explained that the gap financing came from the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program, which was funded as part of the urban renewal program. B. WORK SESSION: Local Economic Development Plan – Part 1 Mr. Ruiz said the City had a three-pronged approach for economic development: ? State and federal economic stimulus dollars ? A long-term view of the regional economy over the next 20 years ? City organization strategies for helping existing businesses and jobs Mr. Ruiz introduced Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir to discuss preliminary economic development concepts. He said a second work session would focus on those items of interest identified by the council and include recommendations for moving forward. Ms. Muir stated that national, state and local economic conditions had affected issuance of residential building permits, reducing the average number per month from 40 in 2006, to 14 in 2008. She said commercial and industrial permits were somewhat lower, but the value of those applications was high. She said a number of measures had been taken to alleviate the development process while preserving the council’s policies. Those included deferring fee increases, reducing turnaround time for permit reviews, using stimulus funds for road repair projects and making some services available on Saturdays. Ms. Muir reviewed agenda item summary Attachment E, Possible Local Stimulus Actions and Attachment F, Items for Council Discussion. She said symbols indicated whether the item had been implemented, was being explored administratively or reflected a policy issue that required direction from the council. She noted that the City would receive $370,000 in federal economic development funds and staff would present recommendations for use at the next work session. She asked the council for feedback on the items in Attachment F. Ms. Piercy was pleased with the focus on local activities and urged that strategies include filters for wages, benefits and sustainability to assure consistency with City goals and policies. She said the public should be MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 2 Work Session involved in discussions of strategies as consumers. She encouraged the council to clearly identify its vision for downtown to help guide developers. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of more flexible home occupation standards. Ms. Muir replied that greater flexibility could allow someone to operate a small-impact business from a home under certain guidelines, including those for parking. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Piercy’s suggestion to apply a sustainability screen to ideas. She pointed out that the downtown belonged to everyone, not just those who operated businesses there. She said alleys were an asset and aided pedestrians and bicyclists moving around in the downtown area. She did not want to offer tax breaks without clear benefits and reiterated her opposition to enterprise zones. She said the City should consider ways to collect taxes from everyone equitably, instead of giving more tax breaks. She pointed to the example of Hynix, which was provided incentives to locate in Eugene and then left. She preferred to assist local businesses. Ms. Muir said there were no policy items on the list to increase tax breaks. Mr. Pryor expressed interest in the concept of a business chain, which had been an asset during previous times of economic hardship. He also favored business loan programs. He appreciated the City’s efforts to find a balanced approach. He said it was important to help both small and large businesses. He noted that Hynix jobs paid well and had good benefits, and Hynix paid the largest property tax in the area for many years, which more than compensated for the incentives it received. Mr. Zelenka commended staff for the actions that had already been taken. He agreed with Ms. Piercy that any actions should have a synergy of goals and include jobs, sustainability, energy efficiency and long-term investments that would produce a good economic environment in the future. He noted that Eugene was 21 on a list of comparable communities from across the nation considered the best places for business and careers. Regarding Attachment F, Mr. Zelenka expressed concern with Item 9, related to sale of surplus City property. He said selling at a low point in the real estate market might not be an appropriate strategy. He also cautioned, regarding Item 13 related to general code amendment, against taking short-term actions that could have a long- term impact on the community’s livability. Mr. Poling declared that he could have a conflict of interest on issues regarding the airport because of his occupation and might need to recuse himself during those discussions. He said that the sale of City-owned property should not occur unless it was to the City’s advantage; a viable development project could provide that benefit, even if the sale price was somewhat lower than anticipated. Ms. Piercy was in favor of Item 4 related to use of City facilities as incubators for small business. She encouraged staff to also consider what types of activities would be likely to draw other business to the facility and the downtown area. She suggested that the University of Oregon, School of Business, might be a resource for the City. She pointed out that economic stimulus dollars could help initiate activities but were not sustainable in the long-term. Ms. Ortiz commented that she supported enterprise zones and urban renewal districts as tools that were used wisely to encourage economic development. She asked if there had been consideration of deferring fees until a property was sold. Ms. Muir said the City had a program that allowed an owner to finance system development charges (SDCs) and make payments over a period of ten years. Ms. Ortiz emphasized the importance of reflecting City values in the use of facilities for small business incubators and seeking business owners from diverse backgrounds. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked for an example of Item 3, completion of construction of capital projects to serve developa- ble lands. Ms. Muir said that could apply to development sites that were waiting for services to be extended before being available for use. She said extension of services would be based on the site meeting specific criteria. Mr. Poling said the fire station in City Hall was a good example of a vacant City facility that could be used for activities that would attract people to the downtown area. He commented that Springfield and Florence had both implemented programs to delay the payment of SDCs. Ms. Muir summarized that staff would explore ways to reflect City values in economic development strategies and prepare a package of recommendations to present to the council at its May 13 meeting. . CONSENT CALENDAR C A. Approval of City Council Minutes of January 27, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting; February 9, 2009, City Council Meeting; February 17, 2009, City Council Meeting; February 23, 2009, Work Session; February 25, 2009, Executive Session; March 2, 2009, Executive Ses- sion; March 2, 2009, Regular Meeting; and March 3, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Neighborhood Matching Grants D. Resolution 4969 Extending the Time for Conveyance of Property Concerning the Multiple- th Unit Property Tax Exemption for Property Located at 19 Avenue and Charnelton Street, Eugene, Oregon and Amending Resolution 4966 E. Adoption of Resolution 4968 Supporting Application for State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Matching Funds for Parks F. Initiation of Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting Code Amendments G. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 18, 2009 H. Interim Appointment to the Human Rights Commission Ms. Piercy noted that the discussion of the economic development plan had concluded earlier than expected and suggested taking up the Consent Calendar, pending Mr. Clark’s arrival. City Attorney Glenn Klein pointed out that the agenda for the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. indicated that if time permitted, action on the Consent Calendar could be taken at the work session. Mr. Ruiz added that items pulled from the Consent Calendar would be acted upon at the regular meeting. Ms. Solomon pulled Item E. Mr. Zelenka pulled items C and F. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, with the exception of items C, E and F. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor moved to proceed with the next item on the agenda. The motion died for lack of a second. The council took a short break. . WORK SESSION D Complaint Involving Police Auditor Mr. Clark arrived at 6:35 p.m. and Ms. Piercy reconvened the work session. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Klein provided an overview of the process for handling complaints against employees of the council. He said the council had to determine if it had sufficient information to act on the complaint; if it determined there was sufficient information, the council could deliberate and take action or postpone action to a future council meeting. He said if the council determined that more information was needed, it would move to the full investigation step in the process and hire an independent investigator. He said the complaint alleged that photographs contained in the Internal Affairs (IA) database were released by the Police Auditor to a private attorney and the release of those photographs was improper and violated the confidentiality agreement. He said Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds had responded that she had released the photographs, but they were of the individual represented by the attorney, the photographs would have been discoverable in any event, and release of that kind of information was consistent with the way the police auditor’s office had acted since its inception. Ms. Ortiz did not want to spend any more funds on an investigation and did not believe it was necessary. She regretted that she had not had more specific information about the complaint at an earlier point in the process and felt it had received more attention than it required. She had hoped there would be an opportunity for Ms. Reynolds to respond directly to the council about the complaint without having to hire an attorney. She questioned whether Ms. Reynolds decided independently to release the photographs or had been taught that was an acceptable practice by the previous auditor. She said the practice of releasing information from the IA database should be stopped, and Ms. Reynolds should adhere to the confidentiality agreement. She wanted to return Ms. Reynolds to work and have a mediator work with Ms. Reynolds and Deputy Auditor Elizabeth Southworth to resolve outstanding issues to assure the office of the auditor operated smoothly until a new police auditor was hired. Ms. Piercy agreed the City should facilitate mediation between Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Southworth. Mr. Klein added that a member of the council and a city attorney with expertise in personnel matters should also speak with Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Southworth to clarify expectations and assure both parties understood obligations and concerns with respect to the aftermath of a whistle-blowing incident. Mr. Clark looked forward to a police auditor system that would operate smoothly and routinely, without so much controversy. He cited comments from a candidate for the auditor position that the job was to follow the law and go where it might lead, which was a good guide to handling the current situation. He agreed with many of Ms. Ortiz’s points, but felt the confidentiality agreement Ms. Reynolds had signed was an issue. He said the agreement prohibited the release of any information from the IA database for any reason. He asked Mr. Klein to read the relevant section of the confidentiality memorandum of agreement (MOU) and indicate whether that granted Ms. Reynolds the ability to make a decision to share certain types of information. Mr. Klein noted that the language was in the MOU signed by Ms. Reynolds in January 2009; it was not reflected in ordinance or statute. He read the following: “I agree that I will keep strictly confidential: any information observed or obtained from any local, state or federal criminal justice systems, electronic patient health information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, confidential personnel records, and any other restricted data. I agree that I will only use and disseminate Internal Affairs case file information and data from the IA database in the performance of my official duties, in that I will not knowingly allow any unauthorized access to the data. I understand that to use the confidential and restricted information outside of my official duties may be a violation of law.” Mr. Clark asked if under the agreement Ms. Reynolds had the ability to decide what information she did or did not share. Mr. Klein said to the extent that something fell under one of the provisions in the agreement, there was no discretion at all and restricted information could not be released. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Clark asked if the photographs were restricted data. Mr. Klein replied that his preliminary conclusion was that the material was restricted data. If his answer was critical to the council, he would require two more days to collect additional information and finalize his analysis. Mr. Clark was pleased that the discussion was occurring in a public meeting at Ms. Reynolds’ request as he was not comfortable with a private conversation. Mr. Poling pointed out that the complaint process established by the council had been followed; it was Ms. Reynolds’ decision to hire an attorney. He noted that in Ms. Reynolds’ response to the complaint she indicated she had released physical evidence, not testimony, as the attorney would have obtained it anyway. He said that decision was the purview of the judicial system, not the police auditor. He was also concerned with statements in the response that he felt attempted to shift blame to the employee who complained, by questioning that person’s motives. He said that while the response indicated the auditor’s office attempted to avoid becoming involved in criminal or other legal proceedings, releasing the photographs did involve the auditor’s office. Mr. Pryor said as an employer he used a model of progressive discipline, which was based on the concept that issues had a progressive nature and included three standards. His criteria for determining the seriousness of an incident related to whether people were hurt or equipment destroyed. His second standard related to whether the situation was clear and unambiguous and the third related to whether the violation was intentional or just demonstrated poor judgment. He noted that there was no deception regarding the incident and Ms. Reynolds admitted that she released the information. He was not certain at this point, after reviewing Ms. Reynolds’ response, whether the photographs were restricted data and would need more time and a final opinion by the City Attorney to make that determination. He said it was difficult to determine whether an act was an intentional violation or an exercise of poor judgment and that difference would have an impact on the nature of progressive discipline. Ms. Taylor asserted that the council’s action was hasty and ill-advised and there should have been an investiga- tion of the complaint and a determination of whether it was a violation before placing Ms. Reynolds on administrative leave. She urged the council to reinstate her as soon as possible. She said it would have been preferable for the council to have a conversation with Ms. Reynolds about the situation instead of jumping to judgment. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the council did not jump to judgment; it followed standard operating procedure when dealing with personnel issues. He noted those were typically discussed in executive session but Ms. Reynolds had requested that the council deliberate on the matter in a public meeting. He stated that Ms. Reynolds was placed on administrative leave with pay, which did not equal suspension or imply guilt. He said the council should treat any complaint it received seriously and deal with those involved in a thorough, fair and respectful manner. He agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments about progressive discipline and determining how serious, unambiguous and willful an incident was before taking action. He thought the council shared some responsibili- ty for the problem because of its lack of supervision of the Police Auditor; however, a process had been initiated to remedy that. Mr. Zelenka said it was not clear to him whether Ms. Reynolds knowingly violated the confidentiality agreement, but she had at least demonstrated poor judgment. He said the council should move forward to reinstate Ms. Reynolds with clear guidelines to be followed until a new police auditor was hired. Those guidelines included not releasing any information from the IA database without the approval of the City Attorney, frequent check-ins with the council or council officers as necessary before making those types of decisions, and meetings with the council officers, the City Attorney and the Deputy Police Auditor to discuss legal issues related to moving forward and mediation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Brown stated that based on the materials he had read he felt there was sufficient information for the council to make a decision. He did not feel the complaint was sustained and no discipline was merited; the incident arose from a misunderstanding. He said the City Manager and Municipal Judge both operated under long- standing and clear guidelines, while the police oversight system was new. He said anyone could make a mistake in judgment and Ms. Reynolds did nothing wrong, although it would have been better had Ms. Reynolds made copies instead of allowing the attorney to sit in her office and view the IA database. He cautioned against micro-managing the Police Auditor. Ms. Ortiz asserted that the council’s decision to hold an executive session and place Ms. Reynolds on administrative leave was not personal; it was based on the City Attorney’s advice and concerned the integrity of the police auditor’s office. She said it would have been inappropriate for the council to ignore or minimize the complaint. She remarked that all police oversight systems experiences “glitches” during their initial years of operation. She appreciated the City Attorney’s advice, but said it was the responsibility of the council as employer to make a decision about Ms. Reynolds’ status. She said the council also needed to be more responsible about providing adequate supervision for the Police Auditor, without micro-managing the office. Mr. Clark believed there was enough information to sustain the complaint as the agreement was clear in its prohibition against releasing any information for any reason. He said in order to decide against sustaining the complaint, a person would have to decide that Ms. Reynolds had the authority to decide which pieces of information were or were not covered by the agreement. He had previously expressed concerns to Ms. Reynolds on the issue of confidentiality. He agreed the council did not fulfill its duty to provide supervision and clear direction to the Police Auditor. He was disappointed in Ms. Reynolds’ judgment, but would not vote to dismiss her even though there was a clear violation of the agreement. He liked the guidelines suggested by Mr. Zelenka. He asked if there was information other than the photographs contained in the IA file that might have been revealed. Mr. Klein replied that the council should confine its discussion and decision to the specific complaint. Mr. Clark asked if the City had any liability or financial exposure in a future case related to divulging IA information. Mr. Klein said it would depend on the nature of the information being divulged and gave several examples that could put the City at risk. Mr. Clark asked if in Mr. Klein’s opinion the council needed any additional information to make a decision. Mr. Klein said it would depend on what the council decided was critical, such as a final determination on whether the confidentiality agreement was violated. He did not hear a majority of the council express an interest in that or other information. Ms. Piercy summarized the council’s discussion: all complaints should be treated equally and fairly; additional information was not required to make a decision; the council needed to be accountable; information from the IA database should not be shared, and there was some question about Ms. Reynolds’ judgment. Mr. Pryor was pleased to hear the council acknowledging how its supervision of the auditor might have contributed to the situation. He said during his experience with the Ethics Commission there were instances when someone unknowingly committed a violation; that could not be overlooked but did not merit a fine or similar punishment. In those instances, the commission would determine a technical violation had occurred and issue a letter noting the violation while acknowledging it was likely inadvertent. He said the council should acknowledge that a violation of the confidentiality agreement had occurred, but punitive action beyond a letter acknowledging that fact was not required. He said additionally the council should put in place much clearer guidelines for use of the IA database information and other aspects of the auditor’s office. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Brown remarked that based on his observations, Ms. Reynolds was doing a very good job and was aware of how confidentiality could be compromised. He did not believe there was a willful violation of the agreement and the council should work with the Police Auditor to develop better procedures. Mr. Zelenka commented that the council would take up the issue of police auditor supervision at its May 11 meeting, and the complexity of the issues involved was why he supported requiring the police auditor to have a law degree. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to reinstate the Police Auditor, with the caveat that the council believed she exercised poor judgment in getting into the circumstance and prohibited her from showing any information to any unauthorized person outside the criminal justice system from the IA PRO system without the approval of the City Attorney; requiring the Police Auditor to check in with the City Council officers before making substantive decisions; directing her to meet with council officers, the City Attorney and Deputy Police Auditor to discuss legal issues moving forward and elicit the help of a mediator to help the Police Auditor and Deputy Police Auditor work during the interim until a new police auditor was hired. Mr. Clark said the citizens of Eugene deserved to have a police auditor office that ran smoothly. He felt that the complaint could be sustained, but would support moving forward because that was the will of most of the council. He asked if the Police Auditor would have access to the IA database if the City Attorney concluded there had been a violation of the confidentiality agreement. Mr. Klein said if the council passed a motion to reinstate the Police Auditor he understood the council intended for her to have access to the IA database. Mr. Clark asked if the City would have additional liability if there was another violation of confidentiality. Mr. Klein said he did not believe the City would have any additional liability, but suggested modifying the motion to clarify that IA PRO information access would not be given by the auditor to anyone outside of the auditor’s office, instead of using the phrase “unauthorized person.” Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Clark agreed with the suggestion. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to separate reinstatement of the Police Auditor from the other provisions in the motion. The motion failed 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting yes. Ms. Taylor objected to placing conditions on the reinstatement of the Police Auditor and did not understand the council’s unwillingness to separate the issues. Ms. Solomon recommended defining the word “substantive” in the motion to clarify the type of issue that should be brought to the council’s attention. Mr. Zelenka felt the threshold for what qualified as substantive had been dramatically lowered. He said there would be a new police auditor within a short period of time and that limited the number of issues that might arise. Ms. Piercy commented that the council’s supervision of the Police Auditor would be improved when new procedures were adopted. She thanked the councilors for the tenor of their discussion of a difficult subject and their willingness to move forward. Mr. Clark suggested modifying the motion to replace “…check in with council officers before she makes substantive decisions…” with “have regular check-in with council officers on day-to-day operations.” Mr. Zelenka restated his motion: “I move to reinstate the Police Auditor with the caveat that the council recognizes she exercised poor judgment in getting into this circumstance; that she does not permit access to IA MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 8 Work Session PRO data to anyone outside the police auditor’s office without checking with the City Attorney; that she check- in with council officers before she makes substantive decisions and meet regularly with council officers on day- to-day management of the police auditor office; meet with the council officers, the City Attorney and the Deputy Police Auditor to discuss legal issues about moving forward and meet with the Deputy Police Auditor and a mediator on how to work together until the council hires a new police auditor.” Mr. Brown wanted to see half of the provisions eliminated because he felt they were insulting to the experience and intelligence of the council’s employee. He did not like the language but would support the motion because he wanted the auditor to return to work. Ms. Taylor said she felt she was being forced to vote for something that was an insult to the person in question. She asked if the provisions would apply to another person who was the police auditor. Mr. Zelenka said the provisions applied to Ms. Reynolds, but many of them would likely be in the new supervisory procedures. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 22, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – Next Steps on Facility Reserve Mr. Ruiz wished to allay any concerns that the City Council or executives were acting too hastily and noted that there would be no vote or similar action taken regarding the facility reserve at the current meeting. Rather, Mr. Ruiz noted that his presentation and comments would aim to provide a clearer context of the new Eugene Police Department (EPD) facility as it related to the downtown area. Mr. Ruiz presented information from the previous council work session regarding the facility reserves and reminded those present that the council had asked staff to provide: 1) a plan estimate to upgrade the current City Hall facility to meet life safety standards; 2) an analysis of, and a recommendation regarding, potential police facility sites currently owned by the City of Eugene in and around the downtown area; 3) a cost estimate for a phased police facility; and 4) the preliminary results of staff’s investigation regarding the use of EWEB’s administration building as a new city hall facility. Mr. Ruiz presented aerial photos of the downtown Eugene area to illustrate potential sites for the police facility and stated that he strongly supported the idea of a police facility in the downtown area. Alternatively, Mr. Ruiz noted that staff had investigated the former Qwest facility across the Willamette River on Country Club Road and found that, financially, the use of that building would provide for a new EPD facility at less than half the cost of what would be involved in the construction of a completely new building. He further noted that the use of the Country Club Road building would not require the City to seek additional tax revenues for the new EPD facility and that from an operational perspective the building was ideally located to provide police services for the city. Mr. Ruiz also noted that, if the City were to use the Country Club Road location as the new EPD facility, the EPD’s downtown presence would not be adversely affected and that a police patrol substation might be placed downtown. Mr. Ruiz noted that while the purchase price of the Country Club Road facility would not call for the use of the entire $16 million in facility reserves, it was expected that any remainder of those funds from the purchase price would be needed for operational upgrades and moving expenses. Mr. Ruiz, noting the conditions of the current City Hall facility, commented that it was expected to cost approximately $6 million to bring the building up to life safety standards, and that such standards only MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 1 Work Session addressed the seismic viability of the building itself. Mr. Ruiz maintained that spending $6 million to bring the current City Hall facility up to life safety standards without further improvements would not measurably increase the value of the building as an asset of the City. Mr. Ruiz stated that should the EPD eventually be moved into its own dedicated facility, other City offices such as the Municipal Court, the Human Resources office, the Mayor’s office and the City Manager’s office might be moved into the Beam Development building on Broadway Avenue as part of the City’s agreement with Beam to lease approximately 50,000 square feet of office space at that location. Mr. Ruiz noted that recent property acquisitions/renovations by the Lord Leebrick Theatre Company and Lane Community College, in conjunction with improved city hall facilities, might serve as focal elements of a new downtown civic center area. Mr. Ruiz commented that staff expected the downtown urban renewal district to reach full capacity sometime in the summer of 2009 and that subsequently the council and staff would need to hold discussions regarding whether to expand the capacity of the urban renewal district or to dismantle the district itself. Mr. Ruiz briefly discussed the manner in which the City might support the arts and cultural footprint of the downtown area and maintained that with the development of recent sites by Wally Graff and the Beam Corporation, and the expansions of the aforementioned Lord Leebrick and LCC facilities, the City should focus its efforts and discussions on supporting the existing momentum of such development initiatives rather than attempting to initiate completely new cultural initiatives. Mr. Ruiz noted that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was currently investigating the possibility of opening a clinic near 13th Avenue and Willamette Street and asked how the City might provide assistance and support for such a project. Mr. Ruiz supported the notion that staff’s investigation into the use of the current EWEB facility as a new city hall should continue, particularly in light of the fact that using the building would allow the building to control development of the 20-30 acres of the riverfront property on which the facility stood. Mr. Ruiz noted that while it might be feasible to use the current EWEB facility as a new city hall, staff investigations had revealed that it would be at least 5-7 years before the building would become available and that the cost of purchasing and renovating the building to the City’s specifications might be as much as $50 million. Mr. Ruiz noted that staff would need direction from the council on whether or not to continue its investigations into the financial and logistical feasibility of the EWEB facility. Mr. Ruiz expressed that he would eventually like to see some sort of streetcar public transportation element in the downtown area similar to such systems in the downtown Portland area. Ms. Piercy observed that the staff recommendations regarding the city hall and EPD facilities were a change from the previous “great streets” concept of having the City’s government buildings located primarily along 8th Avenue, but felt that those recommendations might serve as a better direction for the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Piercy recognized the importance of having the EPD and other public safety “first responders” centrally located in order to efficiently respond to public safety concerns. Ms. Piercy noted recent scientific findings had revealed that the City of Eugene was likely to experience a serious seismic event sometime within the next 30 years rather than the next 100 years as had been previously determined. Ms. Piercy noted that while she had not come to a final decision on her position regarding the best use of the facility reserves, it made sense to recycle an appropriate building for City use rather than to build a completely new facility and that it was also important for the City’s major government and public safety entities to be located on the south side of the Willamette River. Ms. Piercy recognized the need for a new city hall facility but also recognized that to go as much as seven years without an established city hall might be troublesome. Mr. Clark reiterated his belief that the current EWEB building should be re-purposed for the City’s use as a new city hall and wanted to see staff’s investigation into such a plan continue. Mr. Clark had recently learned that there were plans to potentially demolish the old federal courthouse th building at 211 East 7 Avenue and asked staff to investigate potential City uses for that building. Mr. Clark maintained that the City had not wisely managed its real estate transactions in recent years and noted that if there was not a strong enough consensus among the City leadership to purchase the Country Club Road building outright, the City should attempt to purchase an option on the property so that the building might be secured for the City at a favorable price. Ms. Taylor appreciated that Mr. Ruiz had postponed the action regarding the facility reserves and felt the agenda and the suggested motions presented therein had come out of nowhere. Ms. Taylor expressed that a retrofit of the existing City Hall to life safety standards should be the primary concern for the City and that the concerns of the community should be considered at a level that was at least commensurate with the input provided by City staff. Ms. Taylor did not like that the other City divisions apart from the EPD had been referred to as “remaining elements” during the meeting. Ms. Ortiz appreciated that Mr. Ruiz had postponed the action regarding the facility reserves and asked what, as a part of the plan to potentially utilize the Country Club Road building, the City’s plans for a downtown police substation would entail. Mr. Ruiz replied that an EPD police substation might be built into or near the Beam Development site in order to maintain an appropriate EPD downtown presence. Facility Division Manager Mike Penwell, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, commented that there were no currently available downtown buildings that met the criteria for a new police facility at the level of the Country Club Road building. Ms. Ortiz averred that the current City Hall building was not a welcoming structure and wanted to see plans and discussions towards moving into a new space continue. She further noted that she would support Mr. Ruiz’s efforts to initiate a downtown streetcar project as long as the Bethel and Trainsong neighborhoods were included in such a project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Brown appreciated that Mr. Ruiz had postponed the action regarding the facility reserves and noted that further council work sessions might be necessary to reach a consensus on the matter. Jennifer Solomon joined the meeting at 12:37 p.m. Mr. Brown could not offer strong support for any of the options presented by Mr. Ruiz and noted that retrofitting the current City Hall facility to meet seismic life safety standards was the only strategy he could support. He suggested that staff compile a comprehensive engineering report on all City-owned sites so that the safety standards and potential future uses of those sites might be adequately considered. Mr. Poling maintained that there were no available facilities in the downtown area that would be as cost- effective for a new EPD facility as the Country Club Road building. He shared Ms. Piercy’s concerns regarding not having a dedicated city hall facility for an extended period of time and expressed that he was very glad that Mr. Ruiz’s presentation had addressed various business and cultural concerns in the downtown area. He noted that any retrofitting of the current city hall facility to life safety standards might not be wise as facilities for divisions such as the EPD would need to be placed in facilities that were up to essential service standards. Mr. Pryor appreciated the wide variety of options presented by Mr. Ruiz and noted that some combination of those options might be the most efficient and cost-effective manner in which to proceed. He agreed with Mr. Poling’s previous statement that the EPD would need to be based in a facility that was up to essential service standards and not just life safety standards. Mr. Zelenka noted that he did not support the utilization of a dedicated EPD facility without there also being some provision made for a new or improved city hall facility. He further noted that, alternative to using the facility reserves to fund a new EPD facility, he had suggested that the reserves instead be used to hire more EPD officers. He averred that staff should continue its investigation into cost-effective ways to make the current City Hall facility safer and also into the potential use of the federal building at 211 East th 7 Avenue. Ms. Piercy appreciated the variety of options that had been presented by staff and hoped that whatever strategy was adopted would help enhance the arts and cultural footprint of the community. She stated that she continued to have the highest level of concern for the safety and welfare of all City employees and that she was not averse to the idea of having a downtown police substation. She hoped that there might also be further opportunities for the public to weigh in on the various options being considered by staff. Mr. Clark noted that the current City Hall facility, beyond the previous determinations that the building was seismically unsound, was also very inefficient with respect to its power and utility needs. He further noted that to improve the efficiencies of the building and make it more environmentally sustainable would be highly expensive and that the costs associated with such improvements would only continue to rise. Mr. Penwell, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, commented that it was currently unknown what it would take to purchase an option on the Country Club Road building or what strategies might be involved in that regard. Mr. Ruiz noted that staff would be willing to investigate the purchase of such an option if that was the general direction from the council. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Ruiz’s suggestion for a downtown streetcar system and agreed with his comments in support of arts and cultural initiatives in the downtown area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the City of Eugene currently rented approximately 50,000 square feet of office space, in a variety of locations. Ms. Taylor expressed that she was in favor of moving City offices into the Beam Development site once it was completed, that the City should continue its investigation of the use of the federal building at 211 East th 7 Avenue and that the City should also utilize the space previously occupied by the Eugene Fire/EMS department. Ms. Taylor noted that in addition to her previous comments, the current City Hall facility should be retrofitted to life safety standards as soon as possible. Ms. Taylor reminded the council that the public had voted against expansions of the City’s urban renewal district boundaries and warned against any further discussions in that regard. Ms. Taylor felt that the work performed by staff regarding the use of the facility reserves had not followed the council’s direction. Ms. Taylor opposed any efforts to purchase an option on the Country Club Road building and felt that the City had wasted a lot of money in previous years on similar strategies in the downtown area. Mr. Ruiz noted that staff would continue its negotiations with the Beam Development Corporation regarding the City’s use of their development project. Mr. Brown appreciated the reasons given in support of the use of the Country Club Road building but felt that in doing so the City would exhaust the entirety of the facility reserves. He believed that the EPD should continue to be based within the Eugene City Hall and that it was important to maintain a close symbolic association between City Hall and the EPD. Mr. Poling stated that he would approve of expanding the urban renewal district boundaries for the purposes of including the VA clinic previously mentioned by Mr. Ruiz and felt that the public at-large might do so as well. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor’s estimation that the City did not have a good history of purchasing options on available properties and was wary of any such strategies that might be applied to the Country Club Road building. Mr. Penwell, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that to retrofit the current City Hall facility beyond life safety standards to essential services standards would cost at least 20% more. Mr. Penwell further noted that the added costs to improve the facility to essential services standards also did not take into account costs for the utility connections that would be required with such an upgrade. Mr. Zelenka maintained that, in the absence of any plans to demolish the building, the current City Hall facility should be retrofitted to life safety standards regardless of the City’s future plans for the building. Mr. Zelenka felt that a downtown police patrol substation facility would essentially be an empty police garage and did not support such a strategy. Mr. Zelenka commented that re-using an existing building such as the Country Club Road building was a good course of action. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka agreed that a VA clinic located downtown might warrant the expansion of the urban renewal district boundaries. Mr. Pryor felt that the current City Hall facility was antiquated, unattractive and inefficient, and did not believe that it would be advisable to devote any significant amount of money toward its continued use although he agreed that it would be worthwhile to spend the money necessary to bring the building up to life safety standards for the safety of City employees working in it. Mr. Pryor felt that moving the City Hall offices into the civic center might only serve as a temporary solution. Ms. Ortiz believed that the EPD needed to be housed in a separate facility from City Hall and agreed that it might be worthwhile to expand the urban renewal district boundaries if a VA clinic was indeed being considered near the downtown area. Ms. Piercy believed that the current City Hall facility was an “energy sieve” and that the continued use of the building ran counter to the sustainability and environmental directions of the City. Mr. Clark noted that he was not a fan of urban renewal but that the City should support efforts to have a VA clinic in the downtown area. Mr. Clark expressed that he did not want the City to lose out on an opportunity to obtain a usable building at a reasonable price. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the City Council by May 11, 2009, information regarding what would be required to secure an option on the County Club Road building concurrent to ongoing council discussions regarding the building’s use as a potential EPD facility. Mr. Brown felt that the issue of exploring the purchase of an option on the Country Club Road building was not a time-sensitive issue. Mr. Clark responded that there had been incidents in the past where the City might have obtained properties at a more favorable price if it had not hesitated and that his motion was intended only to provide information regarding what would be required to purchase the option. Mr. Ruiz noted that staff could probably collect the information regarding an option to purchase the Country Club Road building by the date specified in Mr. Clark’s motion and further noted that staff would let the council know if it appeared that it would not be possible to collect and review the information within the time specified. Ms. Taylor felt that to collect the information as described in Mr. Clark’s motion would take an unreasonable amount of staff time and resources and further felt that it was unreasonable to assume that some other party would attempt to purchase the Country Club Road building in the near future. Mr. Zelenka noted that he wanted to see more information regarding the Country Club Road building. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion. The motion passed, 6:2 (Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Brown suggested there were a variety of other ways in which facility reserves might be spent to better serve the public. Mr. Zelenka commented that one of the most appealing aspects of the Country Club Road building was that as a former Qwest call center facility it had been built to much higher seismic and structural standards than other potential sites and that the use of such a building might allow the City to envision a number of interesting options as to what might replace the City Hall building at its current location. Mr. Ruiz requested specific direction from the council regarding the next steps they wanted staff to take regarding the facility reserves and further noted that discussion meetings regarding the urban renewal district would be taking place in the spring. Ms. Piercy felt that the options presented by staff had not been narrowed down enough by the council and more information and discussion regarding the options would be needed. She suggested that further input from members of the public would also be needed. Ms. Taylor commented it was her understanding that the City’s budget committee had decided last year that the Eugene City Hall was to be refurbished and asked Mr. Ruiz to return with more information in that regard. She maintained that the condition of the current City Hall facility was disgraceful. Mr. Brown said it would be useful to know the status of any ongoing discussions regarding plans for a VA clinic in the downtown area. Mr. Brown restated his request to have a comprehensive engineering report on all buildings currently owned by the City. Mr. Ruiz replied that while it might be possible to have some sort of engineering report prepared within the next 60 to 90 days, the information provided therein would only be a rough estimate and that a detailed engineering report would take much more time to conduct. Ms. Piercy noted that there did not appear to be strong support from the council regarding Mr. Brown’s request for a comprehensive engineering report of all City-owned facilities and expressed that a motion would need to be made in order to give staff specific instructions in that regard. Mr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to obtain a rough cost estimate for a complete engineer’s report on all City-owned property which would focus and provide information on the steps necessary to bring all City-owned properties up to life safety and/or essential services standards. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend the City Council work session meeting by an additional seven minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Brown if he would accept a friendly amendment to his motion whereby it was specified that what was being requested was an estimation of the amount of resources involved in compiling a complete engineer’s report of all City-owned property. Mr. Brown refused. Mr. Clark noted that it might be prohibitively difficult to determine the scope of precisely what City properties would need to be addressed in any potential structural engineering study and noted that without more detailed information regarding the scope of which City facilities might be evaluated he could not support the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Ruiz was concerned that the motion under discussion did not specifically relate to the use of the facility reserves or any of the EPD/City Hall facility options that had been presented. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Brown’s previously stated motion. The motion failed, 3:5 (Mr. Clark, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting in opposition). Mr. Zelenka asked for an additional council work session meeting regarding the use of the facility reserves and asked staff to carefully review the webcast of the meeting to make sure that all questions raised during the meeting were properly addressed in any continuing discussions. Mr. Ruiz asked that the council members send him any questions regarding the facility reserves that they would like specifically answered in the next work session meeting regarding the matter. Ms. Piercy recognized a general agreement from the council that the current City Hall facility was unsafe and that it might not be worth the time and resources necessary to “fix this place up.” Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 22, 2009 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 27, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that action on Item 4 on the agenda would be postponed as further work was required. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed procedures for providing comments. Daniel Cooper, Eugene, spoke to the council on several issues of concern and thanked them for their service to the community. Joe Collins, Eugene, concluded his comments begun at an earlier meeting regarding residents of the Crest Drive neighborhood who were complaining about the cost of fixing their streets. He said even Councilor Betty Taylor said she had been complaining for years about street assessments and asked whether she or the Crest Drive residents had complained for others in the community facing the same situation. He did not want to see anyone lose their home over the situation and felt that City officials would be glad to meet with owners to review their financial situations, then make exceptions for the needy among them. He said the council had more important things to consider than street assessments, such as a poor police department and high unemployment. He said things in the downtown had not improved since he moved to Eugene 15 years ago. Zachary Vishanoff, Ward 3, Eugene, suggested that the City explore establishing a video link to Salem to provide citizens with access to legislative hearings and the ability to provide testimony without having to travel to Salem. He pointed out that Lane County had done something similar for Florence residents who wanted to participate in Board of County Commissioner meetings. He said the City Club had tentative approval for a program about returning to the river, which he hoped would focus on using the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) building as a new City Hall. He hoped that Mayor Piercy and Councilor Mike Clark would participate in the program, which would take place sometime in October or November. Ed Monks, Old Dillard Road, Ward 7, Eugene, executive director of Catholic Community Services (CSS), th stated that the organization currently owned a facility at 7 Avenue and Van Buren Street. His remarks related to Item 2D on the Consent Calendar. He said some time ago CSS applied for funds to rehabilitate that facility, but it became clear that was not feasible and the agenda item related to reprogramming those th funds initially allocated for renovation to acquisition of a new facility on West 6 Avenue. He urged the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 1 council’s support and thanked Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) staff for their professional and efficient assistance. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum. She thanked those who spoke and called for comments from the council. Councilor Clark thanked those who spoke and expressed his interest in discussing the possibility of a City Club program related to the river. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of February 11, 2009, Work Session; February 11, 2009, Executive Session; February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting; March 9, 2009, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of 2009/10 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs D. Reprogramming of Community Development Block Grant Funds E. Resolution for Authorizing Eminent Domain for Condemnation (Delta Ponds Bridge) F. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of February 25, 2009, March 4, 2009, and March 11, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Clark pulled Item E from the Consent Calendar. Councilor Ortiz pulled Item F from the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar, with the exception of items E and F, was approved, 8:0. Councilor Clark asked why the City wanted to initiate eminent domain proceedings for acquisition of property for the Delta Ponds bridge project. City Engineer Mark Schoening explained that there was some urgency because a portion of the project was financed with federal economic stimulus funds and construc- tion needed to commence in the summer and provide jobs. He said if Oregon was able to obligate its entire stimulus funding there was a possibility that it could gain funds from states that did not entirely obligate their allocations. He said the project was also funded with federal transportation enhancement and earmark dollars. Councilor Clark remarked that he had received many comments from citizens about the bridge. He understood the need to create jobs, but there were other ways to cross the Delta Ponds area and the project had the feeling of a “bike bridge to nowhere.” He asked if there were other options for use of the funds, given the City’s backlog of street repair projects and other transportation needs, which would also create jobs. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to postpone the item until April 29 in order to investigate options more fully before instigating eminent domain proceed- ings. Mr. Clark felt it was incumbent on the council to assure that it had explored options for using the money for higher priorities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Schoening said the $2.25 million in stimulus funds were awarded to the City in a competitive process at the state level, which meant there were other projects that were not funded. He said the Oregon Transporta- tion Commission (OTC) had the authority to obligate those funds and he could not imagine a scenario in which the City of Eugene could use the funds for any other purpose. He said the $1 million in transportation enhancement funds was also awarded through a competitive OTC grant process in which other projects were not funded. The $2.8 million earmark from the last federal transportation bill was specifically for the Delta Ponds bridge project and it would likely take congressional action to make them available for another use. Mayor Piercy commented that if the City changed its mind about the project, the funds could be reallocated to another jurisdiction and the 85 jobs associated with the project would be lost to the community. Councilor Brown asked why property owners were unwilling to sell. Mr. Schoening said he was optimistic that the City could reach an agreement with the property owners, but it was a matter of timing. He said in one instance a property owner and tenant both had rights to compensation. In response to questions from Councilor Brown, Mr. Schoening explained that the owner and tenant would be compensated through rent for the staging area during construction; the portions to be acquired were not currently being used. Councilor Zelenka asked how long the project had been in the planning process. Mr. Schoening replied that the project had been in Trans Plan since 1986 and the concept was in bicycle plans before that; it had been in the City’s capital improvement program for four or five years. Councilor Zelenka remarked that the project would create 85 jobs, plus the purchase of materials from local businesses. Mr. Schoening agreed and added that unlike paving projects, which employed a narrow segment of the construction industry, the project would provide a wide range of opportunities for many different types of contractors. Councilor Zelenka asked if the property owner would be paid fair market value. Mr. Schoening said the City would pay fair market value for an easement. Councilor Zelenka asked what constraints were placed on use of the funds. Mr. Schoening said two of the funding sources related to the federal transportation enhancement program, required that a certain portion of funds were spent on projects such as bike paths and historic structures. The remaining funds represented a specific earmark in federal legislation for the project. He confirmed that the funds could not be repro- grammed by the City for another use. Councilor Pryor observed that citizens were often unhappy that restricted funds could not be used for other purposes. He was willing to take two days to explore whether all options for the funds had been explored, but he did not expect there would be a different outcome at the April 29 meeting. Councilor Poling indicated he would not support the motion because it had been planned for 23 years, the funds had gone through a vetting process and granted over a period of time and he did not want to risk losing the funds. He had also received complaints from citizens about the project, but thought that it would enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety in the area and therefore supported the project. Ms. Solomon asked if it was the City’s intent to have the ability to threaten property owners with eminent domain to force them to negotiate. Mr. Schoening said the City had been working with the property owner for some time and the resolution would provide some certainty about acquiring the necessary property rights MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 3 to award a construction contract. His goal was to complete negotiations within a month and avoid any legal proceedings related to eminent domain. Ms. Solomon asked if the City would be at a disadvantage if it initiated proceedings first because of a recent ballot measure. Mr. Schoening agreed that the ballot measure did put governments at more financial risk to go through eminent domain. Mayor Piercy cautioned against taking the matter to Congressman De Fazio. She understood that there were people who wanted other projects to take priority, but the City had applied under specific funding categories, including one that created jobs and stimulated the economy, and should use the funds as planned. Councilor Clark understood the value of creating jobs, but noted there were other higher priority projects that could accomplish the same goal. He did not feel the bridge project was the best way to spend $6 million. Councilor Ortiz agreed with Mayor Piercy’s comments and did not want to delay a decision on the matter. She asked what would happen with the funds if they were not spent on the designated project. Mr. Schoening said the funds would be returned to the State for reallocation. Councilor Zelenka determined that the City had asked Congressman De Fazio for funds earmarked for the Delta Ponds bridge project. He would not support the motion. Councilor Taylor agreed with Mayor Piercy’s comments. She noted that the project had been planned for a long time and the council should not delay its decision. Councilor Pryor said he supported Councilor Clark’s concerns in principle, but he had been persuaded by comments from other councilors and would not support the motion. The motion to postpone failed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting yes. Item 2E on the Consent Calendar was approved, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting no. Councilor Ortiz asked staff to elaborate on the status of legislation to curb metal theft. Intergovernmental Affairs Manager Brenda Wilson replied that Senate Bill 570 had been passed by the Senate and referred to the House for consideration. She noted that the entire Lane County legislative delegation supported the bill. Councilor Ortiz commented on the problem that metal theft was in the community and acknowledged the work of the legislative delegation to pass legislation to address the situation and thanked them for their efforts. Item 2F on the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions on Legislative Policy from April 15 and April 22, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the IGR Commit- tee’s majority position of Prior 2 Oppose on HB 2865 related to collection of sys- tem development charges by local governments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Wilson believed the bill was dead, although it was in the Revenue Committee. She said the bill had not yet had a hearing and April 29 was the dead bill deadline. She said there was always a chance that the language could be placed in another bill and asked the council for direction. Councilor Poling moved to amend the motion to change the position to Priority 3 Support. The motion died for lack of a second. The main motion passed, 5:3; councilors Poling, Solomon and Brown voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the IGR Commit- tee’s majority position of Monitor on SB 519 prohibiting employers from taking adverse employment action related to religious or political matters. Ms. Wilson stated that SB 519 had passed out of committee that morning with an amendment that clarified it did not prohibit mandatory meetings of executives or their administrative staff to discuss issues related to religious or political matters. She noted the bill was introduced on behalf of a labor organization to prohibit anti-union meetings and a requirement to attend those meetings with adverse action against employees who chose not to participate. She said there would be a minority report on the bill. She said that concerns had been expressed about the bill’s unintended consequences and potential preemption of the National Labor Relations Act. Mayor Piercy asked if the latest version of the bill would still present a problem for employers. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that a short discussion of the implications by legal counsel was included in the agenda packet on page 181, but he was not certain if the recent changes to the bill had been reviewed. He would request a review if the council wished. Councilor Ortiz expressed concern with the bill and felt that a Monitor position was not adequate to assure that employees’ rights were not in jeopardy. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson explained that the amendment clarified that the bill would not prohibit mandatory meetings of executives or administrative staff to talk about issues related to the bill, but did not address any of the concerns raised by legal counsel. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Ortiz regarding protection of employee’s right to refuse to participate in things they objected to. He would support a motion to oppose. Mayor Piercy asked if a Monitor position would convey the council’s wish to see those employee protections in place, but within the realm of what it was legal for the City to do. Ms. Wilson said she would convey whatever message the council wished. She recommended a Neutral position for that message. Mayor Piercy said she wanted to express strong support for protection of people in the work place, while protecting the City against legal problems. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to substitute a motion to adopt a Neutral position on SB 519. Councilor Pryor understood the IGR Committee’s intent with a Monitor position, which meant the bill was being watched, and if there was movement a position to Support, Oppose or Neutral could then be taken. He was inclined to stay with a Monitor position until there was a need to take a specific position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 5 Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Pryor that a Monitor position was appropriate; a Neutral position could imply the City did not care about the issue. Mayor Piercy supported a Monitor position and Ms. Wilson could convey the council’s message that it was interested in work place protections of employees’ rights, but did not want to jeopardize the City’s position. Ms. Wilson pointed out that she did not lobby on legislation or discuss it with legislators when the council adopted a Monitor position; she simply monitored and reported on its status. She would lobby a bill when there was a Neutral position and convey to the legislature whatever message the council directed. Mr. Clark indicated he would support the original Monitor position to protect the City. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Zelenka and Ortiz voting yes. The main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Ortiz voting no. Mayor Piercy clarified that the council’s direction was to do nothing with respect to the bill except report back on its status. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the IGR Commit- tee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the April 15 and April 22 IGR bill reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those IGR meetings. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: Resolution 4971 Approving the Issuance of Additional Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4971 approving the issuance of additional revenue bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission; and providing an effective date. Mr. Klein directed the council to page 210 in the agenda packet and stated that the blank sections should be completed as follows: H. The Commission and its financial advisor recommended that approximately $20 million… N. A public hearing was held before the City Council on April 20, 2009 regarding the issuance by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission of up to $100 million… Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of up to $100 million… Councilor Zelenka and Councilor Clark accepted the additions as part of the mo- tion. The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 6 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4997, an ordinance concerning rental housing standards. Councilor Clark thanked those who testified on the matter and those who served on the committee. He felt the ordinance represented a good compromise and protection for all parties. He was particularly pleased that it would not be necessary to add staff and potential fee reductions would be considered if excess revenue was collected. Councilor Poling stated he would support the ordinance because it addressed the specific type of mold related to faulty plumbing or problems with the building and not just bad housekeeping. Councilor Zelenka also thanked the committee for its work on a well-crafted, thoughtful recommendation. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Waste Administrative Powers and Amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4999, an ordinance concerning solid waste administrative pow- ers. Councilor Clark stated that it was a bad idea to increase taxes at this time and the action was arbitrary and would place an undue burden on many residents. He urged a no vote on the motion. Becky Carlson, Public Works Department, reviewed the responses to public input and questions contained in Attachment A of the agenda item summary. She reminded the council that it was a surcharge on garbage haulers, not customers, and there was no requirement that the surcharge be passed on to customers. She said the surcharge would only apply to customers within the City limits and those properties were already identified by haulers. She also reviewed responses related to administration and collection of the surcharge, the impact on haulers revenue and impact on school districts. She noted that the council could consider a waiver or exemption for school districts, but that could create legal problems in defending the surcharge. She said a more appropriate mechanism for mitigating school district impact would be to develop options in the budget process to offset or reduce the increased fees using other City funding sources. She said a 100 percent offset to the schools would require about $19,000 annually and the City Attorney had been asked to prepare an amendment for the council’s consideration if they were interested in those options. Mayor Piercy asked if using garbage hauler fees to fund road repair and maintenance was an unusual practice. Ms. Carlson replied that many jurisdictions in Oregon levied fees on garbage haulers and used the revenue for a number of general government purposes, including road repair. Councilor Pryor remarked that the Council Committee on Transportation Funding Solutions had discussed the surcharge extensively and he was comfortable with the concept, but the timing of an additional fee was a concern because of the economy. He was also concerned with enacting a fee before it had been discussed as MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 7 part of the City’s budget process. He preferred to delay action until other options had been explored by the Budget Committee. Councilor Zelenka spoke to the need for a comprehensive funding package to address maintenance and repair of roads. He said the issue had been discussed at length by the committee and many funding options examined. He said the committee had recommended a package of funding options, one of which was the garbage hauler surcharge. He asked staff to discuss the reasons that a surcharge was not expanded to include other heavy vehicles. Ms. Carlson said the committee had discussed expanding the surcharge to other heavy vehicles, but found a broader fee structure would be problematic because it could be seen as a vehicle registration fee, which only counties could impose, along with the administrative difficulty and expense of identifying and assessing a fee on all categories of heavy vehicles. Councilor Zelenka said the amount of deferred maintenance was continuing to grow and the condition of streets was getting worse. He did not see where other funds could be obtained in the budget process, given the City’s financial shortfall. He supported amendments related to school districts and a sunset clause to allow a review of the ordinance in one year. Councilor Brown asked if garbage haulers would be compensated for the labor and time involved in collecting the surcharge. Ms. Carlson said there had been no discussions of that and the City would need more information on what the haulers perceived as the incremental effort involved. She said the calculations would be made on the same basis of revenue as the current licensing fees and it was the City’s goal to make the process as easy as possible. She said compensation could be considered in the administrative rule process. Councilor Brown agreed with Councilor Pryor’s suggestion to consider the matter during the Budget Committee’s deliberations. City Manager Jon Ruiz said there would need to be a discussion because failure to adopt the ordinance meant there would be a $900,000 hole in the road operations and maintenance budget. He said the proposed budget contemplated having the surcharge revenue available. Councilor Clark agreed that the City needed to go through a priority setting discussion before the council considered adding or increasing fees. He said the garbage haulers would pass the surcharge along to customers and it was a bad time to impose additional costs on residents. He was particularly sensitive to the impact on schools and concerned that if exceptions were made for them there would be requests for exceptions for others who might qualify for special treatment. Councilor Ortiz said she could not have supported a ten percent surcharge, but would support it at the five percent level. She asserted that councilors were elected to make difficult decisions and she did not want to refer the surcharge to the Budget Committee; the public expected the council to work on the problem of funding the transportation system. She agreed that the timing was not good, but did not think the surcharge was unreasonable. She pointed out that currently construction costs were less expensive and it was a good time to continue to work on roads. She urged the council to support the ordinance. The motion failed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Zelenka and Ortiz voting yes. Mayor Piercy asked the council to indicate if there was a majority of members who wanted the surcharge discussed within the context of the budget process. Councilor Solomon stated that she wanted to discuss the matter at the Budget Committee level and asked that staff provide information on the garbage hauler system, including licensing process and fees and guaranteed profit. She said it felt somewhat like double taxation on haulers. She also wanted a Budget MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 8 Committee discussion of a gas tax as some people had indicated they would support a gas tax in lieu of the surcharge. Councilor Pryor indicated he wanted to have a more extensive discussion of the surcharge and the broader issue of the City’s position with respect to transportation funding. He said there needed to be a consistent set of values, direction and priorities upon which to build a budget. He said the deferred maintenance backlog resulted from a systematic lack of consideration for transportation funding over many years. Councilor Clark emphasized that there had to be a larger discussion of City priorities. He said fixing the transportation system was one of the highest priorities, second only to public safety, but felt the surcharge was an inappropriate way to fund it. Councilor Ortiz expressed her disappointment that the ordinance did not pass. She asked if reducing the budget by $900,000 would result in employees being laid off. Mr. Ruiz said the result was a $900,000 gap in road operations and the maintenance budget, but was not certain if that would result in layoffs. Mayor Piercy summarized that councilors had not rejected the concept of a garbage hauler surcharge, but wanted to have that discussion within the budget process. Councilor Zelenka asked that Budget Committee members be provided with a copy of the Council Committee on Transportation Funding Solutions report. He hoped the budget discussions would also include a street utility fee, one of the funding recommendations that he had supported. He said that streets had to be repaired and if no other revenue sources were available, that meant massive cuts to other services the City provided and the community valued. Councilor Clark stressed that public safety—fire, police and emergency medical services—was his highest priority for the City; transportation and appropriate funding was his second highest priority. He said the public expected the council to make hard decisions about priorities within the framework of available funds. Councilor Poling reiterated his opposition to a garbage haulers tax. Councilor Pryor remarked that it was a momentous decision that directly addressed community values and priorities. He said councilors would approach the matter from their individual perspectives and it would be a difficult discussion, but that was what they were elected to do. Mayor Piercy encouraged councilors to be respectful of each others’ values and priorities during the budget process. 7. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Wastewater and Stormwater Service and Amending Sections 6.411 and 6.421 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5000, an ordinance concerning wastewater and stormwater ser- vice. Mr. Klein clarified that the ordinance Section 3 transferred funds and sections 1 and 2 were forward-looking and put into place the ability to use the funds in the same way in the future. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 9 The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2009 Page 10 ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 29, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:45 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – Review Candidates for Police Auditor Interviews Human Resources Director Alana Holmes reported on the status of the police auditor recruitment interviews and asked the council for direction regarding the coverage of spousal travel expenses for the candidates. Ms. Piercy, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, noted that the total cost for spousal travel expenses from the previous interview sessions was approximately $210.00 per person. Ms. Holmes further noted that the travel expenses from the previous sessions were not higher becausesome candidates had chosen to travel by car with their spouses rather than fly. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct City staff to include spousal travel expenditures as an allowable expense for police auditor candidates. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION – Review Candidates for Police Auditor Interviews Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary presented information regarding the Eugene Counts Framework (ECF) statement chart which had been revised from the council’s work session meeting on April 15, 2009, and further noted that staff was seeking input from the council regarding the language to be used in the Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation; Effective, Accountable Municipal Government; and Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources portions of the ECF. Ms. Medary noted that staff would return to the council with a revised ECF on May 26, 2009. The council members and executive staff discussed several variations on the language contained in the Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation portion of the draft ECF statement as well as many revisions regarding the same. The council members and staff discussed the language and overall philosophies of the various bullet points as presented by the Ms. Medary and further discussed several revisions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 29, 2009 Page 1 Work Session The councilors and Mayor, and staff, briefly discussed the language of the Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation section’s corresponding Outcomes statements as listed in the draft ECF chart. Council Coordinator Beth Forrest confirmed that the revision to the aforementioned portion of the ECF chart would be revised per the council’s recommendations and discussions to read, “A community that emphasized the arts and outdoors as an integral part of our social and economic well being that is available to all.” Ms. Medary noted that she would continue to apply any suggestions or further input regarding the statement the council members might choose to offer. The council members and staff continued the discussion regarding the revised language of the Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation portion of the ECF statement. Ms. Piercy hoped that the language of the statement under discussion would accurately reflect the City’s commitment to the cultural and recreational well-being of the community. Ms. Medary noted that the staff, in revising the language of the ECF from the previous work session, had struggled with the language that would describe appropriate measurement tools for the various outcomes listed in the ECF. Ms. Piercy suggested that language reflecting the number of cultural opportunities available in the downtown area be included as part of the outcomes under the Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation portion of the ECF and further suggested that such outcomes might be used to enhance the safety and livability of the downtown area. The council members and staff discussed various potential revisions and additions to the stated outcomes of the Accessible and Thriving Culture and Recreation portion of the ECF statements. Ms. Medary noted that there had been no recent changes to the language of the Effective, Accountable Municipal Government statement from the ECF chart. Mr. Pryor suggested that the language of the Effective, Accountable Municipal Government statement be revised to include language that would describe the City’s duty to deliver effective and efficient services to the community. Ms. Medary replied that the language from the Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources section might reflect Mr. Pryor’s suggestion in that regard. Mr. Poling suggested that the outcome, “Number of Police Auditor Complaints” be revised to “Number of Employee Complaints/Commendations.” The council members and staff discussed various potential revisions and additions to the Effective, Accountable Municipal Government statement and corresponding outcomes from the ECF statement. Ms. Medary, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that community survey results were being listed as outcomes for several different sections of the ECF as they would be applied across a variety of disciplines to measure the effectiveness of the City’s strategies. Ms. Taylor preferred that community survey results be removed from all of the outcome descriptions in the ECF. The council members and staff briefly discussed the ways in which community survey results and other strategies might be used to gauge the outcomes listed under the various sections of the ECF. The council members and staff discussed various potential revisions and additions to the Fair, Stable, and MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 29, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Adequate Financial Resources statement and corresponding outcomes from the ECF statement. Mr. Pryor worried that an improper or imprecise wording of the statement under Fair, Stable, and Adequate Financial Resources might allow that statement to be used as an escape clause wherein the City might not be ultimately responsible for carrying out the provisions of the ECF. Mr. Zelenka noted that outcomes from the Fair, Stable, and Adequate Financial Resources section of the ECF might also apply to both the Safe Community and Municipal Government sections of the ECF. Mr. Pryor noted that the “Infrastructure maintenance backlog” outcome might also need to be revised to consider strategies for how various areas of the City’s infrastructure might be measured in terms of their effectiveness and viability. The council members and staff discussed various strategies and elements related to the outcomes of the Fair, Stable, and Adequate Financial Resources statement from the ECF. Mr. Clark commented that it might be necessary to consider some measure of the public’s general priorities in relation to the various outcomes described in the ECF. Ms. Medary reviewed the revisions incorporated into the ECF from the previous work session for the benefit of the councilors and Mayor and reminded them that staff would return with another draft of the ECF statement on May 26, 2009. City Attorney Glen Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, described the manner in which Councilor George Brown might change his vote on a previous council decision. Mr. Brown noted that he had reconsidered his position on a recent council vote regarding the Civilian Review Board and might wish to enter a motion to reconsider at the next council work session. Ms. Piercy confirmed that Mr. Brown would bring up the matter at a future council meeting. Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 29, 2009 Page 3 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 13, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – West Eugene EmX Extension Update LTD Board President Mike Eyster presented an update on LTD’s West Eugene EmX Extension Project and noted that LTD’s primary objective for the briefing before the Eugene City Council was to learn how they might want to process decisions regarding any locally preferred alternative (LPA). Mr. Eyster proceeded to demonstrate LTD’s 61- mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system and related infrastructure that had been incorporated as part of the TransPlan approved in 2001 Mr. Schwetz commented that the approval of the TransPlan in 2001 had been the impetus for the eventual implementation of BRT systems by LTD. Mr. Eyster demonstrated figures that reflected the number of community residents who used LTD transit services and noted as proof of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the LTD systems that the number of LTD service hours had decreased while the number of overall boardings across the LTD system had increased dramatically. Mr. Eyster noted that an increase in LTD ridership around 2006 was attributable to the implementation of the student group pass program. He noted that the student group pass program had been very successful in reducing the number of vehicles on the road while at the same time introducing students to the benefits of public transportation. Mr. Schwetz noted that student group pass users accounted for approximately 7,000 out of the 44,000 LTD boardings per day. He further noted that the increase in the number of boardings across LTD reflected the success of LTD’s efforts to expand the traditional role of public transportation systems to include “choice riders” in addition to riders that were historically considered to be “transit dependent. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that recent economic conditions and fluctuations in fuel prices had contributed significantly to recent rises in LTD ridership but were not completely responsible for them. Mr. Eyster presented figures regarding the average weekday boardings for LTD’s EmX service which demonstrated the effectiveness of the system. Mr. Eyster further noted that, taken in comparison to the boarding statistics for LTD Route No. 11, the ridership figures for EmX had already surpassed the 20- year projections for the service. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Eyster and Mr. Schwetz briefly discussed the main characteristics of BRT systems and described how those characteristics had been incorporated or would be incorporated into EmX services. Mr. Schwetz directed the council members to their copies of an LTD brochure which was designed to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of BRT systems. Mr. Eyster commented that BRT systems such as the EmX often facilitated the implementation of full scale light rail transit since BRT systems used similar infrastructure elements. Mr. Eyster briefly discussed EmX Contributions to Addressing Key Community Issues as listed in his presentation materials for the benefit of the council members. Additionally, Mr. Schwetz reported on recent studies that showed significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and other climate change related impacts were present in public transit systems where there were typically more than 7 to 10 bus passengers per hour. He reported that EmX boardings averaged approximately 115 riders per hour. Mr. Schwetz presented information regarding the LTD Alternatives Analysis and Drafting of Environmental Impact Study (EIS) as it pertained to the extension of EmX service in the West Eugene area. He noted that a number of public outreach efforts would be conducted with regard to the analysis and the EIS in order to keep community members fully informed on all aspects of the West Eugene EmX Extension project. Mr. Schwetz noted that LTD’s draft EIS was expected to be completed and released in January of 2010 to be followed by a 60-day public comment period Mr. Schwetz noted that, with respect to the LPA, LTD was requesting that the council provide direction to them regarding what information might be necessary in order to reach a consensus as well as direction regarding the types of processes the council might want to use as it reached a decision on the LPA. He further commented that a joint preferred alternative committee comprised of representatives of the Eugene City Council, the LTD Board of Directors, and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) might be used to determine a course of action regarding the LPA. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the MPC would have input regarding the LPA since the West Eugene EmX Extension project was federally funded. Mr. Eyster concluded his presentation and noted that although the extension of LTD’s EmX service had at times been controversial, the public need for the system was very high and that the service had indeed had many positive broad effects upon the community. Mr. Piercy noted that she had recently visited the new Springfield EmX station and looked forward to the benefits that the extension of the EmX service would provide. She appreciated the clarity and specificity of the LTD presentation and recognized that successful implementation of the extension project would require concerted effort from the City of Eugene and its partner agencies such as Lane County, the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the City of Springfield. Mr. Taylor hoped that LTD’s public transit extension efforts would include services for people living in the more remote, outlying areas of Eugene and Lane County and not just services for the denser, more centrally located areas. Mr. Eyster, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that while he did not have exact population figures for the City of Eugene from any periods where the City used streetcar systems it was generally accepted that such systems had proven to be financially unsustainable. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council members use one of their future work session meetings to take a group tour led MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 2 Work Session by LTD representatives of the various locations described by Mr. Eyster in his presentation. Ms. Taylor hoped that LTD would provide extensive public input opportunities with regard to any expansions of its services. Mr. Schwetz assured Ms. Taylor that LTD conducted a wide variety of extensive public outreach efforts in order to involve the public on all LTD projects. Mr. Zelenka was concerned about how LTD might address any right-of-way issues associated with future expansions of the EmX system and hoped that such issues would be adequately addressed in the future. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a comment from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the impressive ridership figures associated with the EmX service were attributable to both the efficiencies of the EmX system as well as the fact that LTD staff might have actually underestimated the 20-year projections for EmX ridership. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that LTD’s plans to begin collecting fares for EmX services beginning in the fall of 2009 would allow LTD to more easily implement fare collection procedures in all subsequent expansions of the EmX system. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the Springfield and Coburg representatives on the MPC were entitled to vote on the Springfield expansions of the EmX service as they had done because it was a transportation project. Mr. Zelenka felt that it would be very important to involve members of the public with regard to any efforts to expand the EmX service, particularly with regard to those persons Mr. Schwetz had described as “transit dependent.” Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor that it would be very important for LTD to provide a wide variety of public outreach efforts. Mr. Clark noted that various long-term right-of-way acquisition issues would need to be addressed in any future plans to expand the EmX and other related LTD services. He noted that he still had a number of concerns regarding the capital investment planning that would be required to address right of way acquisition issues when there remained a number of other operational and financial security issues that needed to be addressed by the City. Mr. Brown asked that the LTD representatives provide information to the council regarding no-build alternatives and also asked if LTD had conducted any surveys of LTD riders with regard to EmX expansions. Mr. Schwetz replied that such surveys had been conducted and that he would be happy to send Mr. Brown and the other council members a copy of the survey results. Mr. Eyster, responding to a question from Mr. Brown regarding the spacing of stops along the EmX lines, noted that while the stops were indeed further apart, a number of neighborhood circulator bus routes had been established in order to make it easier for riders to travel to and from those EmX stations as well as other main transit lines in the area. Mr. Pryor reminded those present that much of the funding for EmX expansions and other related BRT services came from federal sources. Mr. Pryor felt that it would be very important to balance the needs of the various types of public transportation users in the area. Mr. Poling commented that he continued to serve as a member of the Coburg Road stakeholder group which advised on various BRT and EmX related issues as well as a related BRT/EmX steering committee. He felt that the use of stakeholder groups and steering committees had been very effective in positively affecting the development of BRT MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 3 Work Session transit systems in the area and hoped that such efforts might continue in the future. Ms. Ortiz noted she had attended some of LTD’s public outreach sessions and felt that LTD had been very effective at communicating with not only members of the public but also local businesses. She recognized that LTD and the EmX service represented an important regional asset to the community and advocated for further City participation in the discussions regarding expansion of the service. Ms. Ortiz suggested that LTD start investigating other corridors in Eugene where EmX services or other BRT systems might be beneficial. She further suggested that LTD’s student bus pass services might be expanded to include residents in the West Eugene area and other outlying neighborhoods of the City. Mr. Brown, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, clarified his earlier statements regarding no-build alternatives to mean that such alternatives would not involve any dedicated transportation lines or elimination of parking areas. Mr. Eyster and Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that various EmX neighborhood build-out issues had been addressed over the course of the Gateway EmX extension project. They noted that further plans for neighborhood expansions of LTD services were still to be determined. LTD General Manager Mark Pangborn, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, described the various federal and state funding mechanisms used to provide for EmX extension efforts and other BRT-related projects. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, briefly discussed various connectivity elements of the EmX expansion and alignment options along West 11th Avenue. Mr. Poling suggested that the council’s discussion of the Local Economic Development Plan as listed on the agenda be postponed to a later meeting to allow for further council discussion regarding the EmX extension project. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that LTD’s plans for its “Bus Plus” corridor systems had been put on hold due to various operational and financial issues. Ms. Piercy looked forward to further updates from the LTD board regarding the EmX extensions and to their continued participation in future stakeholder meetings. B. WORK SESSION – Local Economic Development Plan – Part Two Ms. Piercy noted that the previously scheduled council work session discussion would be postponed to provide time for a discussion of HB 2001 C. WORK SESSION – Proposed Amendments – HB 2001 Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson directed the council members to their copies of the proposed amendments to HB 2001 as well as a draft letter from the City of Springfield to the Oregon State Legislature regarding the proposed amendments to the bill that had been introduced by the group known as 1000 Friends of Oregon. Ms. Wilson noted that the Springfield City Council was requesting the City of Eugene to sign it as well and support their opposition to the amendments. Ms. Wilson noted that the amendment proposed by 1000 Friends of Oregon would require the three largest Metropolitan Policy Organizations (MPOs) in Oregon (Portland Metro, Eugene-Springfield, and Salem-Keizer) to factor greenhouse gas emissions in their transportation and land use plans as part of a pilot study. Ms. Wilson noted that the City of Springfield had several serious reservations regarding the amendments which were expected to move MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 4 Work Session into the bill very soon. Ms. Wilson noted that several Eugene City staff members had reviewed the amendments and offered written responses. Ms. Wilson, responding to a comment from Ms. Piercy, stated she had recently spoken with the chair of the state House Transportation Committee who had indicated to her that the amendments in some form were expected to be adopted into HB 2001. Mr. Clark asked if there had been any discussion about possibly allowing the Eugene-Springfield MPO to drop out of the pilot study specified in the 1000 Friends of Oregon amendment. Ms. Wilson noted that the Salem-Keizer MPO shared concerns similar to those of Eugene and Springfield and was also investigating whether or not those concerns would require them to oppose HB 2001 as a whole. Ms. Wilson stated that staff would need direction from the council regarding the manner in which they would proceed regarding the amendment itself as well as whether or not the City of Eugene would co-sign Springfield’s letter regarding the amendment. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, reported she had spoken with John Chandler of the Homebuilders Association who informed her that while they supported the amendments they also shared some of the concerns brought forth by the City of Springfield. Ms. Wilson, responding to a request for further information from Mr. Zelenka, provided a brief overview of the reservations that had been raised by the City of Springfield regarding the proposed amendments to HB 2001. She noted that while Springfield generally agreed with the policy intent of the amendment, they worried that it might represent an unfunded mandate and would circumvent the City’s authority. She further noted that other concerns regarding the amendments, as well as several proposed alternatives, had been detailed in Springfield’s draft letter to the state legislature. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the amendment represented an important and badly needed strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, but agreed that there were several funding and planning issues that might need to be addressed in ways similar to what Springfield had suggested. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, commented that the amendment to HB 2001 could divert state operational funds to fund the pilot program. Mr. Clark recognized the goals of the 1000 Friends of Oregon’s amendment but noted that he could not currently endorse the amendment to HB 2001 as written. He further noted he had not yet had a chance to review the draft letter from Springfield. Mr. Poling noted that he would not support the proposed amendments to HB 2001 and noted he would be willing to make a motion in support of the Springfield letter. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, stated that local gas taxes would not be affected by the proposed amendment. Ms. Ortiz was concerned about funding issues related to the amendment and noted that while she agreed with the goals of the amendment she could not currently support it. Ms. Piercy understood that the over-arching purpose of the 1000 Friends of Oregon amendment was to address MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 5 Work Session greenhouse gas and carbon emissions and agreed that it was a viable strategy that should be supported. She believed that while the funding issues in the amendment would need to be addressed, opposing the amendment indicated a lack of commitment to the environmental concerns of the community. Mr. Pryor noted that the amendments to the bill might not be the best course of action for the City of Eugene and stated he would need more time to review the matter. He noted he would not currently support the proposed amendments. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments and indicated she was concerned with the speed with which the amendments were moving forward as well as the funding issues that had been raised. She also noted that the amendments might ultimately circumvent local authority regarding climate control initiatives and noted she would not currently support the proposed amendments. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the work session meeting by ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Piercy’s comments in support of the proposed amendments and noted that the MPC had recently voted unanimously to approve environmental provisions similar to the proposed amendments to HB 2001 in their draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) document. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the council could choose either a “support if amended” or “oppose unless amended” position regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a support position regarding the proposed amendments to HB 2001 if amended to include full funding and a voice in the modeling and setting of local standards regarding the same. Ms. Wilson commented that 1000 Friends of Oregon had considered the local match provisions of the proposed amendments to provide full funding for the pilot study described therein. Mr. Zelenka responded that the full funding he referred to in his motion called for full and complete funding beyond the local match provisions. Ms. Taylor reiterated her support of the proposed amendments. Mr. Clark indicated concern that the votes cast by Ms. Piercy and Mr. Zelenka as members of the MPC were supposed to be by agreement and representative of the general will of the Eugene City Council and further noted that their recent votes regarding the UPWP might have been cast without proper consideration of the will of the council. Mr. Clark stated he was unable to support the motion and felt there were several questions regarding the proposed amendments and the funding mechanisms involved that he needed answered. He advocated for further discussion regarding the matter. Mr. Zelenka, responding to a point of order from Mr. Pryor, noted that his motion referred only to a support position on the proposed amendments to HB 2001 and not to any provisions of the bill itself. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that it was likely that the proposed amendments would be moved into HB 2001 in the near future and would apply to at least one of the three main MPOs. She believed HB 2001 would eventually be referred to the voters. City Attorney Glen Klein noted that the language of the proposed amendment was unclear about how the local jurisdictions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County would need to work together with regard to the pilot study described therein. He suggested that the council motion might need to be revised in order to provide more time to MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 6 Work Session investigate the provisions of the proposed amendments more thoroughly. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that revisions had been made by 1000 Friends of Oregon to the proposed amendments that would provide for mediation of any administrative or operational disputes between local agencies affected by the provisions of HB 2001. Mr. Klein responded he was concerned that the mediation language of the proposed amendments was not specific enough and might allow the state government to impose an authority over local agencies. Ms. Ortiz asked for clarification regarding the staff responses that had been drafted regarding the proposed amendments. Ms. Wilson briefly summarized the written responses of Sustainability Manager Felicity Fahy and Transportation Planning Manager Rob Inerfeld. Mr. Inerfeld noted that his suggestions of ways the bill might be amended, as described in his written response, had been made to correspond with the position of the Springfield City Council regarding the proposed amendments. Ms. Wilson briefly summarized the written comments of Principal Planner Steve Nystrom and indicated that staff was recommending a “support if amended” position regarding the proposed amendments. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that while there were still a number of blank items involved in HB 2001, City staff currently recommended a support position on the bill. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion and adopt an opposition position regarding the proposed amendments to HB 2001 as presented. The motion failed, 4:5 (Ms. Piercy, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Brown, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition) Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The motion passed, 5:4 (Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition). Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Executive Session Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 18, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Piercy called the Eugene City Council into executive session to consider the employment of a public officer, employee or staff member, pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a). The executive session adjourned and the work session reconvened at 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 18, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. B. WORK SESSION: Police Oversight System – Role and Expectations Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary provided an overview of the subject and drew the council’s attention to the Police Commission’s 2005 report and the 2008 police auditor recruitment brochure, both of which were included in the agenda packet. She said the documents contained information about a hybrid police oversight system, the auditor’s independence from the Police Department and procedures for handling complaints. She felt the Police Commission’s report was the best representation of what was intended with police oversight and the brochure summarized the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the oversight system. Ms. Piercy noted that City Manager Jon Ruiz was on leave. She said an announcement regarding a new police auditor was postponed while due diligence was conducted. She posed questions for the council to consider during its discussion: ? Did the council require any clarification on the oversight system to assure there were common expectations and understanding? ? Did the public require any clarification? ? Would the discussion of roles and expectations prepare the council for its consideration of recom- mendations from the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee and auditor supervision proto- cols? Mr. Zelenka felt that desirable outcomes for the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB) would be to clarify their roles and the council’s expectations. He said those could be set forth in a bulleted list. He asked who was on the Police Commission when the report was written. Ms. Medary said she would provide that information. Ms. Taylor asserted that the council was responsible for supervising the Police Auditor, but that arrange- ment had not worked to date. She suggested that auditor supervision could be rotated among councilors on a monthly basis so one councilor did not have to shoulder the entire burden. Mr. Pryor said the concept of good supervision should provide appropriate guidance and direction that identified expected outcomes and allowed an employee a certain level of independence to perform the basic MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 1 Work Session operational tasks of their job. He said the council needed to clearly define the outcome it wanted from the police oversight system. He said one outcome could be to identify and punish bad employees; another could be to improve the performance, function and credibility of the Police Department. He said those outcomes were not mutually exclusive, but each represented a different emphasis for an oversight system. Ms. Piercy cited the oversight system expectations and language related to the independent function of the Police Auditor as set forth in the ordinance and noted that was different from the supervision being discussed by the council. Mr. Clark commented that the ordinance prohibited an individual from influencing the actions of the auditor. He said one member of the council could not speak for the body, but the council as a whole was charged with the duty of oversight and supervision, which were two separate things. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he was writing an opinion on police auditor supervision for the council’s consideration. He pointed out that both the ordinance and the Charter charged the council with supervision of the Police Auditor, which was an independent office. He said the opinion would differentiate between the auditor’s role of investigating and making findings and the council’s supervision of the auditor as an employee. Ms. Taylor saw supervision as keeping in touch and identifying a contact person who could then report to the council. She used the example of a principal who supervised teachers but did not tell them how to teach. Mr. Zelenka clarified that the motion about police auditor supervision recently passed by the council was intended to provide supervision of the functioning of the police auditor’s office rather than interfere in outcomes of those functions. Ms. Ortiz said the new oversight system had brought many improvements regarding handling of complaints. She said the council did not know details of how the auditor’s office functioned and it would be helpful to have information about those processes. She felt that supervision of the auditor should be provided by council officers and intended to put forward a template for that supervision at the council’s work session on the subject. She thought the Civilian Review Board and Police Auditor should represent a quality control model. Mr. Pryor felt part of the council’s role as supervisor should be to support its employees and that required mutual trust. He said the question was how to foster sufficient trust between the council and the auditor to have a smooth and effective relationship. He hoped that was a question the council would explore. Ms. Piercy observed that oversight systems took time to become established and gain the confidence of the community. She liked Ms. Taylor’s proposal for shared supervision and asked the council to consider it. Mr. Brown remarked that councilors had been remiss by not meeting frequently with the Police Auditor as they did the City Manager. He wished the CRB meetings were on a different night so councilors could attend. He appreciated the auditor’s quarterly reports and felt that recent misunderstandings had resulted from procedural “gray” areas that could be resolved through regular meetings. He hoped when a new auditor was hired the entire staff of the auditor’s office would meet weekly with council and CRB representatives to discuss procedural matters. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s comments about a quality assurance model and did not see that any substantive changes to the system would be required to achieve that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka cited the purposes of an oversight system and functions of the police auditor as identified in the Police Commission’s report. He said it was the role of the City Council to provide supervision and that needed to be defined clearly. He felt the need to assess and address issues raised by the Police Auditor with respect to the functioning of the auditor’s office. He said the CRB’s role was defined in the report and did not include supervision of the auditor. Mr. Brown pointed out that one of the CRB’s delineated roles was to participate in the annual evaluation of the Police Auditor. Ms. Ortiz commended the CRB for its hard work, but questioned whether the intent was to have the board minutely examine each piece of evidence during case reviews, essentially conducting a re-examination. Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds said that the CRB reviewed the entire case file—from in-car videos to investigation reports and medical records—looking for gaps in the process or indications of bias. She said the board could request a case, but typically cases were selected from a summary of closed cases provided by the auditor; an examination of the entire case file was the model used by most jurisdictions with an oversight system. She said in most cases there was agreement between the Police Department and the Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka said it would be difficult to determine whether there were gaps or biases without examining the entire record. He asked how many cases the CRB reviewed annually. Ms. Reynolds replied that the board usually looked at one case per month and on occasion two. She said it generally took members eight to nine hours to examine the complete record for a case. Mr. Zelenka remarked that the police auditor’s office existed to ensure the quality and nature of the investigation was thorough and appropriate and the role of the CRB was to monitor the work of the police auditor as well as identify trends or areas that warranted recommendations regarding policy changes or training. He said the CRB’s role with respect to policy was to identify issues and the Police Commission’s role was to make the policy recommendations to the Police Chief. Ms. Reynolds agreed, but said that if the CRB or police auditor identified an issue such as a lack of training on the Americans with Disabilities Act it might make that recommendation directly to the chief in the interests of expediting action. Ms. Ortiz asked how the community had responded to the new complaint and intake process through the Police Auditor’s office. Ms. Reynolds said her office had begun conducting follow-up surveys and phone calls to determine complainants’ levels of satisfaction with the process. She commented that mediation services were available and those who had gone through it were pleased with the results. Mr. Clark said the Police Commission’s role was to reflect community values in its police policy recommen- dations. He asked how the CRB ascertained community values in order to integrate them into case reviews and policy concerns and whether the CRB explored legislative intent behind the policies that existed. Ms. Reynolds said the CRB had a packet of materials detailing the work of the Police Commission to establish the oversight system and each CRB member was required to take eight credit hours of training on various policing issues. She said each case had a policy issue that provided further background information and she also provided the board with resource materials. She felt the CRB had a good grasp of police policies and the history of creating those policies and was always looking for ways to improve and clarify them so they worked better for everyone. Mr. Clark questioned whether the CRB sometimes had concerns about policies because it lacked information about the background or intent of those policies. Ms. Reynolds said other jurisdictions had adjudication MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 3 Work Session categories of “within policy, but the policy was flawed” and “training failure.” She said Eugene’s system did not have those outcomes, which could address some of the issues encountered by the CRB. Ms. Piercy asked if there was a process for determining whether training needs identified by the CRB or auditor were addressed. She had spoken to the City Manager, who indicated that the auditor could also contact him with respect to outstanding issues. Ms. Reynolds said it would be helpful to have information from the Police Department about what training was being provided and to whom. Ms. Piercy summarized that there appeared to be no significant disagreement among councilors regarding the CRB and the Police Auditor. She heard general agreement on the need for a bulleted list of expectations, a suggestion that many concerns could be addressed through better and more frequent communications with the council and consensus that there should be a certain level of independence for the auditor and trust was important in that relationship. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 18, 2009 Page 4 Work Session ATTACHMENT H M I N U T E S Executive Session Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 26, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Piercy called the Eugene City Council into executive session to consider the employment of a public officer, employee or staff member, pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a). The executive session adjourned and the work session reconvened at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT I M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 26, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order at 5:37 p.m. She explained that the council had just conducted an executive session for purposes of putting a motion on the table to make an offer of the police auditor position. She noted that Ms. Solomon would be arriving later in the meeting. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to offer the position of police auditor to Mark Gissner at a salary of $94,723.00 annually and other terms similar to those contained in the contract between the City and Cris Beamud, the first police audi- tor. Ms. Taylor stated that she would vote for the motion but wanted to state publicly that the current Interim Police Auditor was the best qualified by education, intelligence and experience for the job and the City could have saved a lot of money and gotten a good person by hiring her. Mr. Zelenka stated that Mark Gissner had been the police auditor in Cincinnati, Ohio, had a great deal of experience and would make a good auditor for Eugene, given his background, history and skills. Ms. Ortiz said it had been a long process and she was pleased that the council was offering the position to a person with the credentials and background for the work who brought a national and international perspective to the office. Mr. Zelenka explained that there would be a transition period, with Mr. Gissner beginning part-time on June 29 and moving to full-time on August 7. Ms. Piercy commended the due diligence performed by council officers and City staff in order to select a new police auditor. She cited many of the favorable recommendations and remarks that were received about Mr. Gissner. She said of particular importance was Mr. Gissner’s positive relationship with the minority communities in Cincinnati, representatives of which stressed his objectivity and fairness. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Piercy said she and Mr. Poling had conducted a Mayor’s one-on-one meeting that was very informative. She attended the opening of VetLift III, a facility providing housing and other services to veterans. She spoke to students at Cascade Middle School and attended an EmX ceremony in Springfield. She noted the City received $63,450 from the Youth Conservation Corps to be used for parks and employment of youth. She congratulated those who participated in the bike commute program and thereby prevented 33,000 pounds of carbon emissions. Mr. Clark said he and Mr. Zelenka continued to provide supervision to the Police Auditor and had preliminary discussions about the transition period to a new auditor and addition of members to the Civilian Review Board (CRB). He reported on the Eugene Police Department’s (EPD) report to the Police Commission on the taser pilot project. He attended a joint elected officials meeting on economic develop- ment and a Lane Metro Partnership board meeting at which potential businesses for the area were discussed. He thanked Planning Director Susan Muir for her assistance responding to inquiries from his ward regarding development of a residential treatment center. He spoke at two cemeteries on Memorial Day and thanked the Musgrove family for its contributions. He said the next two joint elected officials meetings would deal with jurisdictional issues and ambulance service areas. Mr. Brown commented that the Human Rights Commission had elected new officers and discussed use of Community Development Block Grant funds for the removal of barriers and improving accessibility. He proposed to the Willamette Valley Sustainable Food Alliance surveying small businesses and presenting the results to the joint elected officials’ economic development task force. He attended a meeting of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and the Taser Town Hall. He said some people at the town hall spoke bitterly about the police, but overall a wide range of opinions and perspectives was presented. Mr. Poling said the City had just completed its budget process and he was pleased with the work of the Budget Committee. He extended his appreciation to staff and the citizen members of the committee for their efforts. He had received several calls from constituents and commended staff for their responsiveness when he forwarded concerns to them. Mr. Pryor concurred with Mr. Poling’s remarks about the Budget Committee, its citizen members and the staff. He said cutting $12 million from the budget had been done as effectively and respectfully as possible. It was the most efficient budget process he had experienced. As a councilor, he took the advice of the Budget Committee to heart. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Poling and Mr. Pryor about the effectiveness of the budget process. She met with citizens concerned about the Seneca bio-mass co-generation plant. She said there were no resolutions, but those present listened and shared information. She attended the Taser Town Hall, but because the City did not officially participate she felt another forum should be organized, perhaps by the City Club. She announced that the We Are Bethel celebration would occur June 6 at the Petersen Barn. She participated in a candidates’ forum in which representatives of communities of color were able to discuss those issues that were important to them and participated in an event organized by the University of Oregon and Chamber of Commerce to discuss contracting with women- and minority-owned businesses. Ms. Taylor supported the idea of a City Club-sponsored Taser forum. She recommended the play Suicide Weather at Lord Leebrick Theater and the Farmer’s Market as local events of interest. She remained concerned about charging the Farmer’s Market for parking. She said Crest Drive area street improvements remained a problem and 14 people at a neighborhood meeting had voted to delay the project. She questioned how many people constituted a neighborhood. She asked if there was a way to gather the opinions of those who would be assessed and whether the project could be limited to Crest Drive and not include Storey MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Boulevard and Friendly Street. She would be attending the National League of Cities Human Development Committee meeting later in the week and workforce development would be a topic of discussion. Mr. Zelenka expressed his appreciation for the budget process and all of those who were involved. He felt there were some innovative solutions to funding shortfalls. He said the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Association discussed a tool exchange at its last meeting and the Amazon Neighbors planned a neighborhood clean-up on June 14. He reported the Walnut mixed-use center process was under way and congratulated school board members who were elected or re-elected. Ms. Ortiz said she heard that Bethel teachers had given up pay for five work days. City Manager Jon Ruiz said he and the Mayor would attend a high-speed rail meeting in Portland. He said the Summer in the City kickoff would be held on June 2 to stimulate more activities and events in the downtown area. Joint elected officials would be discussing ambulance transport, economic development and Metro Plan issues and all three subjects were extremely important. Councilors were invited to attend the graduation of firefighters at the end of the week and on June 4 he planned to attend a Santa Clara Communi- ty Organization meeting. He had met with the new University of Oregon president. Ms. Piercy also commended the Budget Committee and City Council for their work on the budget and determination to avoid employee lay-offs and cutting services as part of the solution to revenue deficits. She said the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) would not be on the council’s agenda until June 22 and suggested that in the interim the council establish a work group consisting of Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Zelenka to develop different perspectives. C. WORK SESSION: City Council Goals Retreat Follow-Up Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary and Terrie Monroe of Central Services provided an overview of the Eugene Counts framework and the work accomplished to date. Ms. Medary hoped during the work session that the council could reach agreement on a vision statement and the value statements, followed by a discussion of how the Eugene Counts initiative was presented to the public. She reviewed changes to the council’s vision statement and the five value statements. Ms. Piercy determined there was consensus to accept the vision and value statements language as presented. Ms. Solomon arrived at 6:15 p.m. Ms. Monroe used a slide presentation to provide an overview of the Eugene Counts process and how it connected goals to actions to results, which would inform decisions within the City organization and support development of a sustainable budget that reflected community values. She said public participation in the process would verify the vision and goals, identify measurements of success and provide insight into community priorities. She listed a wide range of community interest groups to be involved and strategies for reaching out and engaging them. She asked for feedback from the council on what results it wanted and how success would be defined in each of the goal areas. Ms. Piercy felt it was important to separate safety issues related to reducing crime from those associated with homelessness to avoid giving the impression that they were connected. She suggested thinking about MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 3 Work Session social service clubs like the Rotary and Kiwanis clubs as a part of a deeper and broader engagement of the community, along with churches and synagogues and people who were downtown in the evenings. Mr. Clark said that outcomes related to current conditions—less crime, greater access—might not be suitable in the long-term and he would prefer terminology that described a destination or end result instead of a never-ending outcome. He was not certain how clean water fit as an outcome under sustainable development. He suggested moving measures related to adequate and well-maintained infrastructure to the category of sustainable development, instead of fair, stable and adequate financial resources. That would reflect the high value of infrastructure. Ms. Taylor asked how staff proposed to reach out to such a large segment of the public, which could be expensive. Ms. Monroe said one of the budget strategies for this year was to rely less on outside consultants and build capacity within the organization to take on those types of projects. As many internal resources as possible would be used to facilitate the public sessions. Ms. Taylor said the Shape Eugene’s Future process was quite successful in engaging the community and could be a model. Mr. Pryor said the council’s most important decision would be deciding on goals. He did not feel he was ready to discuss outcomes as part of the public process because he was concerned that his opinions would be given greater weight because he was a city councilor. He said the technical and professional perceptions of those inside the City organization and external perceptions from the public would be very helpful to the council’s deliberations, coupled with the measurable realities of available resources and regulatory or statutory requirements that could not be modified. Mr. Zelenka felt the process was going in the right direction and pleased to see linkages between the budget and outcomes and strategies. He emphasized the importance of broad public involvement and innovative outreach strategies. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the council delaying a discussion of outcomes and measures until input from internal and external sources was available. Ms. Ortiz said an important outcome for her was the ability of the public to understand the budget process and the source and use of funds. She wanted to see information gleaned from the council’s conversation on race used to inform public outreach efforts to involve a more diverse cross-section of the community. She hoped information could be linked to school web pages to encourage the participation of high school students. Mr. Poling said a linkage to Lane Community College would also be important to involving young people. He agreed with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Zelenka about waiting for public input on outcomes. He suggested making brief presentations at the board meetings of various community organizations as an outreach strategy. Ms. Piercy said some of the goals would need more details, such as whether the goal related to homelessness meant fewer homeless people or greater shelter capacity. She said sustainable development outcomes that had gained support in the community included reduced carbon emissions. Mr. Pryor felt public participation would be effective if it stayed at the value or policy level and did not become too involved in the minutia of specific strategies. He said if the public was simply asked to identify their priorities without any guidance, the result would be a list of whatever issues were uppermost in their minds at that point; an aided approach would be to list a number of issues and ask to have them prioritized. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 4 Work Session He said there was a difference between interest and commitment and with respect to priorities people should be asked what they would be willing to spend money on. Ms. Solomon asked in what context random stratified sampling would be used. Ms. Monroe said that would be used for focus groups and the methodology was to invite participantion from a random sample of the population at-large or of target populations. She said that would assure a focus group was more likely to represent the average opinions of that population and was more scientifically rigorous than allowing participants to self-select. Ms. Solomon asked that random stratification include ward representation to assure a balance across the community. Mr. Clark commended the budget process for its creative strategies to address the revenue shortfall, but felt similar situations would be faced in future budget processes and it would be a challenge to create a better sense of community vision and real tools to use in the next budget cycles to make well-informed choices. Ms. Taylor felt it would not be necessary make trade offs. People could be asked what they wanted and then how they suggested obtaining the funds, perhaps sharing with them how other communities funded their services. Mr. Ruiz said those would be some of the questions he posed to the community challenge group he was establishing. Ms. Piercy agreed it was important to ask people what they felt were the essential services for a good community, then discuss what could be paid for with existing resources and where additional resources could be obtained. She did not want to begin the conversation by asking people to make choices. Ms. Solomon asked if there would be an outreach strategy that was tangible like a survey to which people could respond if they were unable to participate via computer or in person. Ms. Monroe said there would be strategies to reach people without computer access or the ability to attend a meeting. She said the intent was to make the process as accessible as possible. Ms. Piercy said groups like the Bethel Boosters or student organizations could be enlisted to help with outreach. Mr. Ruiz encouraged councilors to let staff know if they had suggestions about ways to reach people in their wards. Ms. Piercy said it appeared the outcomes needed more refinement and should also reflect those things the City was already trying to accomplish. Mr. Ruiz agreed that the list represented a sampling at this point and would be expanded and refined during the process. Mr. Pryor said people did not necessarily make the distinction between different levels of government such as city, county, state and school districts. He said education was likely to be high on the public’s list of priorities, but technically that was not a service delivered by the City. It was important to provide a framework for people to discuss their interests whether or not these were directly served by the City because the City worked in partnership with other jurisdictions and it would be helpful to understand how the City might support those priorities. Ms. Taylor noted that in many communities the municipal government cooperated with the school district to provide activities for young people. She said that could provide an opportunity for the City to stretch its recreation dollars. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked if the measure related to the number of arts/cultural/outdoor activities downtown referred to City-sponsored events only or if partnership activities would be included. She thought the community would expect these to be collaborative events and not that the City would assume the full burden. Mr. Ruiz said the staff would continue moving forward with the Eugene Counts initiative with periodic check-ins with the council. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 6 Work Session