Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/13/09 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 13, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 7:36 p.m. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Pauline Hutson , 1025 Taylor Street, called the tree cutting that had been done for the EmX project along Pioneer Parkway a “massacre.” She asserted that 286 trees had been destroyed. She alleged that no one had known about it except the Lane Transit District (LTD) planners. She averred that LTD had responded that 286 trees sounded like more trees than it actually was. She disagreed; it was a lot of trees. She asserted that the public hearing on these trees was scheduled after the tree cutting had been scheduled and at an “inconvenient hour on a weekday.” She opined that one could not trust LTD staff to tell people as decision- makers what they needed to know. She declared that a person must ask the right questions and must anticipate “every possible impact.” She felt that LTD planners would tell members of the public that they were transportation professionals, had done “all that hard work and study” and that their judgment should be trusted. She averred that if one asked for proof or questioned their judgment the planners would “act hurt.” She said when that happened a person should “just remember the EmX tree massacre.” Joseph Collins , Ward 8, wished to protest the “inordinate amount of time allotted to the juggernaut” of Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard residents. He understood that a number of the people who th resided on the streets had protested “for years” regarding the costs of upgrading their “19 century streets.” He had driven through their neighborhood and had been impressed by the “magnificent homes” he saw. He commented that it embarrassed him to hear so many of those homeowners express moral outrage that they had to pay to fix their streets like everyone else. He discussed some of the testimony he had heard. He noted that Councilor Taylor had indicated that she had complained “for years” about the street assessment methodology. He wondered if any councilors had complained when other areas of town had faced the same situation. He recalled that one person had opined that all property owners should pay for these streets since everyone used them. He underscored that he did not want to see anyone lose their home over this issue. th Eugene Drix , 307 ½ East 14 Avenue, remarked that street signs on High Street were often stolen. He commented that Eugene had too much of nothing, like many people these days. He noted that the ceiling of the Council Chamber was shaped like an ‘O’ like the first letter in Oregon. He said there was nothing all around us and there were two large holes in downtown to keep nothing in. He said Eugene also had lots of potholes, which were more holes to keep nothing in. He remarked that there used to be money coming in for trees but then “all the trees were cut down.” He averred that the solution to the future was “4:20.” He said if a person did not know what 4:20 meant, they should find out. He invited everyone to join him on April 20 MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting at 4:20 p.m. at Kesey Plaza. He explained that at that time every year for five years running, he would sit and play his drum for four minutes and twenty seconds. Joan Kelly , 3265 Elmira Road, Ward 7, wished to speak to the issue of street assessments. She referred to the council’s March 9 work session, at which most councilors had acknowledged the need for further discussion concerning the City’s policy for road improvement assessment. She thought the burden of cost should be shared by the people who used the road. She said that there were “in excess of 2,500 trips per day” on Elmira Road. She averred that after the assessable property owners left and came back, there were approximately another 2,000 drivers on the street. She noted that there was a development that had no ingress or egress except via Elmira Road. She stated that it was classified as a collector and could qualify for federal dollars as such. She understood the need for construction to occur in the coming summer because of the bid that had been received. She hoped that if the council determined, through further discussion of the assessment methodology, that the burden on properties immediately adjacent to the roads that were being improved should be reduced, it would retroactively include the Elmira Road/Maple Street project. She said there were 120 assessable properties in the project and approximately 40 percent were rentals, making it difficult to contact them about remonstration. She stated that she had collected more than 72 signatures to remonstrate. She gave the following quote from C. Wright Mills, writer of The Power of the Elite: “As the means of information and power are centralized, some men [and women] come to occupy positions in American society from which they can look down upon, so to speak, and by their decisions mightily affect the everyday morals of ordinary men and women.” She averred that the council was in such a position with the vote on the Local Improvement District (LID) for the Elmira Road/Maple Street project. She had sent the councilors an email about it, adding that she never knew if her emails were actually read because she never received responses to them. She hoped the councilors would look at the email because it included information about interest rates, assessable properties, and the number of vehicles on the road during the day. Jim Wilcox , 205 West 31st Avenue, Ward 2, stated that he was the director of Bike Lane Coalition (BLC). He related that BLC supported House Bill (HB) 2690, the “Idaho stop” law. He averred that it had been successful in Idaho, a state with “nearly identical population density and transportation infrastructure.” He said the City was correct that cyclists sought the same rights and responsibilities as operators of vehicles, but because of the “car culture,” vehicles meant cars and this attracted many cyclists who “literally ride in the margins” to support the same rights movement. He disagreed with City staff’s position that HB 2690 would modify one of the main safety rules for bicyclists and would add to the rift between them and automobile drivers. He said different vehicles operated on the city streets with different traffic rules or use patterns based on “practical realities.” He suggested that this included a wide variety of vehicles on the streets and skateboards and pedestrians on the bike paths. He averred that there were sufficient differences between cyclists and vehicles to warrant the “reasonable exceptions” provided by HB 2690. He opined that bicyclists were better able to use sight and sound than a driver of a motor vehicle, when approaching an intersection, and operated at a slower speed. He declared that bicyclists offered a personal, plant-friendly alternative to the car, lowered pollution and added to public health, and kept dollars normally spent on imported fuel within the local economy. He did not believe we could advance the agenda to provide sustainable, healthy, and environmentally healthy transportation without questioning the “unbridled dominance” of the automobile. He urged the City to take a leadership role to advance the public benefits of bicycling by endorsing HB 2690. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Mark Schoening, City Engineer with the Public Works Department, that he had suggested to people testifying before the Hearings Official on the Maple Street/Elmira Road project that they could bring their concerns before the City Council. She noted that the written instructions indicated that an item that had gone before the Hearings Official could not ordinarily be brought up in the Public Forum, but made an exception based on the information Mr. Schoening had given the Elmira Road area MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting residents. Sue Wolling , 825 Washington Street, #2, spoke in support of the “Idaho stop law.” She hoped that, in the future, the City would hear from citizens before taking a stand on such a law. She felt that a lot of bicyclists had “felt betrayed” by the City’s stand on the issue. She averred that she was not a “crook,” but she did roll through stop signs. She opined that a moving bicycle was easy to maneuver, but once it stopped it became much more difficult to initiate momentum and maneuver it. She could see whether a motorist was at the intersection and it did not make sense to her to stop if there was no oncoming traffic. She asserted that Idaho had not experienced an increase in collisions or injuries. She considered the notion that the law would antagonize motorists to be erroneous. She noted that Eugene was committed to building more “bike boulevards.” She thought this would not happen for a long time, given the current economy. She suggested that the lesser-traveled residential streets would be ideal for bicyclists, if the bicyclists did not have to stop for each and every stop sign. She asked the City to reconsider the position it had adopted on HB 2690. Shane Rhodes , 1920 Garfield Street, said he was a member of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and was also the Safe Routes to School Program Manager for the School District 4J. He encouraged the City Council to support HB 2690. He believed the bill would help encourage bicycling in Eugene. He averred that people would prefer to avoid large streets with heavy auto traffic when biking, but most quiet residential streets had stop signs at every intersection to calm automobile traffic. He felt that bicyclists trying to avoid the busy streets were “practically forced” to disregard the current law or to be “completely inefficient” in their transportation from “point ‘a’ to point ‘b’.” He averred that a better system was needed and HB 2690 would encourage this and would result in an increase in the use of bicycles. He declared that the law had been working in Idaho since 1982. He believed the law would still outlaw bad behavior and would legalize “already safe and practical behavior.” He noted that he taught bicycle safety education to both adults and children. He opined that the law would increase safety. He asserted that the BPAC had been formed to give advice to the City on issues affecting bicyclists and lamented that it had not been consulted prior to the City adopting its oppositional stance to HB 2690. He concluded by offering his endorsement for the proposed Washington/Jefferson Skate Park. Paul Adkins , 180 North Polk Street, Ward 7, stated that he was the father of four children and the president of the Greater Eugene Area Riders (GEAR). He stated that GEAR supported HB 2690 because it believed the law would increase ridership and decrease animosity between car drivers and bicycle riders. He averred that bicycles were unique due to size, agility, slower speeds, and vulnerability and should not have the same rules as motorized vehicles. He opined that it was safe to roll through a stop sign when no motorized vehicles were coming. He related that he taught parents and children that rode bicycles in Eugene. He echoed the sentiment that the process should have included better public involvement. He asked the council to ask staff to reconsider its opposition to HB 2690. He declared that the laws should help people choose human-powered transportation. Lee White , 2260 Lincoln Street, stated that he was a businessman and a member of the Eugene Rotary. He said, as a member of the Rotary’s Subcommittee on Community Service, he wanted to convey the Rotary’s endorsement of Resolution 4968, which would direct staff to apply for grant funding to build a covered skate park. He said the Rotary looked upon the project as a fulfillment of its “third avenue of service” to the City of Eugene and wanted to make the project, a covered “destination skate park,” a success. th Howard Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, Ward 3, wanted to address the “Idaho stop” bill and carbon dioxide emissions. He remarked that he would likely make his trip to the Council Chamber and back “on a serving of mashed potatoes.” He said people who choose to drive would leave approximately five to ten pounds of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He averred that transportation accounted for 50 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. He noted that the City had adopted a goal to reduce such MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting emissions. He felt that HB 2690 would help increase the number of people who rode bicycles. He opined that bicyclists were a political minority who needed passionate advocacy and “steadfast pursuit” of the goal of promoting bicycling. He believed that the unanimous recommendation of staff to oppose the bill and the unanimous support of the bill by the bicycling community represented the disparity between the “culture” of the City staff and citizens. He asserted that this should be addressed by the City Manager. Bill Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, presented a petition of remonstrance signed by 67 people. He conveyed the belief of the signees that the assessments proposed for the Crest project were “excessive and unfair.” He said the petition was incomplete; he anticipated more residents would sign in the next several days. He stressed that area residents wanted the project to go forward, but they wanted the projects to be built in “an equitable and affordable fashion.” He understood that some councilors thought the process was fair and some thought it was unfair, but he had heard unanimity in the belief that it was unaffordable. He surmised that it could take a full citywide vote to change the assessment methodology, noting that the Crest area residents would support doing so. He stated the residents’ preference, however, to handle this “inhouse” by changing it to a citywide assessment for projects that benefited many people or that surpassed a certain amount of money. He averred that the assessment burden should be shared by more people. He was confident that the final petition of remonstrance, to be submitted to the City Engineer within a week, would contain enough signatures to move the council toward a two-thirds majority vote on the project. He asked the council to vote against moving forward with the Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard road repair until a more equitable assessment policy was crafted. He felt this should also apply to the Elmira Road/Maple Street project. Eric Selker , 3795 University Street, noted that he also served on the board for GEAR. He estimated that approximately five percent of the people in Oregon use bicycles to commute. He felt that one reason people did not ride more was because it was regarded by people as dangerous, slow, and troublesome when it rained. He said people tried to ride in safe places, but it was slower to go through the residential neighbor- hoods. He suggested that allowing bicyclists to roll through stop signs when there was no traffic would encourage bicyclists to get off the main thoroughfares and would make it safer for both cars and bikes. He asked the councilors to reconsider and support HB 2690. Michal Young , 2310 McLean Boulevard, echoed support expressed for HB 2690. He averred that they were not talking about “annoying” bicyclist behavior; they were talking about allowing people to roll through a stop sign only if there was no other traffic. Erika Kronenberg , 3490 Elmira Road, said there was a large portion of the populace in the Elmira Road/Maple Street area that must utilize Elmira Road, designated a collector, to get to where they needed to go. She averred that there were at least 300 homes in the area. She thought a change in the assessment practice would defer the cost for all of the residents in that area. She pointed out that the neighborhood was largely working class people who were able to make their mortgage and not much more. She stressed that they were individuals who wanted to remain in their homes and who wanted to be treated fairly. She asked the City Council to consider a way to change the rules and to work with the City and the people who lived in the area to see if they could make a difference. Erika Winters , 1661 River Road, said she was a Tactics Team Rider for the ladies team, formerly of the Shelter Indoor Skate Park and she was an advocate for Skaters for Eugene Skate Park. She was honored to speak before her peers to endorse the proposed city center skate park. She averred that skaters had tried everything to survive the rain in Eugene, from “sketchy backyard ramps” to mops and leaf-blowers. She said they had considered indoor skate parks and rebuilding existing skate parks, but had found that the cost- gain model did not hold true with the exception of the city center skate park blueprint. She was glad the City was willing to consider their proposal. She discussed the “gains” she believed the $500,000 park MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting would bring, including placing Eugene “on the map” as an “international skate community destination,” providing a secure, dry and lit skate park that would accommodate both the northwest weather and the large population of student and working skaters who were not able to skate during the day, and creating a skate community “hub” to bring them together “under one roof.” She predicted that the skate park would shift the “darker energy” that exists under the bridge out of that area and would welcome in “a shining productive light that would transform the space forever.” She considered renovation of existing skate facilities to be “penny wise and pound foolish,” as the locations were not as good and expansion possibilities were limited. She also thought such renovations would disturb neighboring schools. She concluded by declaring this was the chance “to do it right.” She said this would provide benefits to a diverse community and “humbly” requested the council’s support for the proposal. th John Perry , 435 West 9 Street, Junction City, offered his endorsement of the skate park. He said there were also horseshoe courts in the Jefferson/Washington Park. He was there to promote horseshoes “more than anything else.” He had seen “large people who would be less large” if they would get out and practice the sport of horseshoes. He considered it to be an excellent sport for physical health. He invited anyone who wanted to come down and learn about pitching horseshoes to come by the park on Wednesdays between 3:00 p.m. and as late as 6:00 p.m. He said the horseshoe crowd was friendly, there was no profanity, and everyone had a good time. He added his hope that the skate park, when constructed, would not infringe on the space allowed for horseshoe pitching. th Dominic Ruscio , 360 West 27 Avenue, spoke in support of the resolution that would authorize the application for grant money for a skate park. He believed that the City needed a skate park. He acknowl- edged that some might feel that the City had enough skate parks. He commented that it was even difficult for him to remember the skate parks because some of them were “easily forgettable.” He averred that the city had “one okay park, a couple of mediocre parks, and the rest [were] quite frankly a joke as far as skate parks go.” He said they were forced to share the parks with bikers. He believed that the park presented a “golden opportunity.” He related that the most recent copy of Thrasher Magazine featured a Eugene native, Silas Baxter-Neal, on its cover. He assured everyone that Mr. Baxter-Neal had not achieved that level of success by staying in Eugene and skating in its parks. He said Mr. Baxter-Neal had gone to Portland, Colorado, and California, where there were “great skate parks.” He noted that the magazines were saying that Oregon was becoming a “skate mecca,” because of Mark Scott who he considered to be the “Picasso or DaVinci” of skate park design. He hoped that if Eugene decided to do the skate park, Mr. Scott would be hired to design it. He predicted that people would come from all around the world to “ride Mark Scott’s latest masterpiece” if the City built the park using his design. He believed the park would benefit skate- boarders and all of the City of Eugene. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, addressed “segment B” of the future extension of the EmX bus line. He said there were currently three options, which he had outlined in a handout provided to the thth councilors, one that could go by Amazon Creek, one on West 11 Avenue, and one on West 7 Place. He predicted that putting the route next to the creek would cause “riots in this town.” He thought it would th present many land use issues and would be very expensive. He also believed that the potential West 11 Avenue route would involve a “massive taking of land.” He averred that the numbers would be “astronomi- th cal.” He opined that the 7 Place route would not involve as much taking of land and would provide the most direct route. th Ilona Kozeszar , 871 West 11 Avenue, Ward 1, stated that she was a member of Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT) and the West Eugene EmX Corridor Committee (WEEC). She said LTD had recently suggested an alternative plan intended to avoid pulling EmX buses in and out of the downtown station. She th asserted that LTD wanted to take the EmX down East 11 Avenue instead of turning right onto Mill Street th and left onto 10 Avenue. She predicted that, if that happened, the EmX station would be built across the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting street near the Olive Plaza Apartments. She believed that this would compromise existing businesses by eliminating or reducing access and parking. She said two of the committee members had asked why Oak thth and Pearl Streets were not being considered as a way to get back onto 6 and 7 Avenues. She asked the councilors to urge city staff working with LTD to look at the possibility of utilizing Oak and Pearl Streets. Gloria Merriam , 240 Sunset Street, Ward 3, stated that she had lived in the community for 37 years and had taught at Roosevelt Middle School for many years. She quipped that she represented “grandmas for skate parks.” She noted that she had known Mr. Baxter-Neal when he was just learning to skate. She averred that the City had the opportunity to do something wonderful and provide a great venue for a skate park. She urged the City to support it. Laura Hackney , 3050 Kincaid Street, said she was the “proud parent” of a 16-year-old skater. She related that he skated whenever he could, weather permitting. She stated that water was not a skateboard’s friend, noting that she had replaced several, and a “bored kid” was not a happy one. As a community member, she urged everyone to get involved and donate what they could. She averred that if the skate park was built, the skaters would come to it. Gary W. Cook , 4284 Bent Tree Lane, Ward 2, said he had ridden bicycles in Eugene “for years” and put more miles on his bike than on his car. He tried to be conscientious and to obey laws. He preferred to ride on streets where he did not impede automobile traffic. He was concerned with the process in regard to the “Idaho stop” law. He felt that people who rode bicycles should have been heard, given that the issue affected bicyclists. He reiterated that people on bicycles would not run stop signs in the path of a car and that bicyclists lacked decent thoroughfares to travel on. He averred that if the City Council did not want to consider the law, the council should support better transportation facilities for bicycles; bicycles should be considered a form of transportation. th Samantha Chirillo , 157 East 27 Avenue, Apt. 3, Ward 1, supported the legalization of the “Idaho stop.” She also supported a strong Police Auditor position. She said this should mean that the auditor’s office be fully staffed “at all times as the voters expect.” She mainly wanted to testify about alleged lack of notice given by Union Pacific Railroad of its intention to use herbicides. The Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA) Environmental and Social Justice Committee considered this to fall under its purview. She related that, as a representative of CPA, she had talked with someone who worked in the City Manager’s Office (CMO) at the Neighborhood Summit. She had explained why notification of spraying was very important, because it was considered a health hazard to people who “live, work, and play near the railroad tracks.” She had seen the notification email that had gone to the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) and the notice that had gone to the CMO. She did not consider the notice adequate as she alleged that it had been sent less than a week prior to the spraying. She had talked with people and felt that not enough people knew about it. She asserted that a similar incident had occurred in Multnomah County in 2008 and some children had been sent to the hospital. She asked why staff had allegedly not been informed of the “Good Neighbor Agree- ment” and what had happened to the list of interested citizens. She wanted to ensure that neighborhood residents were well-advised of future pesticide applications so that all residents, and children and pregnant women in particular, could avoid the area if necessary. She suggested that there should be follow-up with Congressman Peter DeFazio given that he was the chair of the Transportation Committee. She said there was also no notice on the City’s website and related that “a person” who called the CMO for advice was not told to avoid the area. Matthew Parrott , 3012 Friendly Street, wished to address the Crest Drive project street assessments. He explained that he was a self-employed house painter who, along with his wife, had purchased a duplex in 2005. He related that they had worked hard to upgrade and maintain the duplex and that the rents they received did not cover the payment. He stated that the assessment for the project would amount to MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting approximately $25,000 and was “more of a burden than [they] could shoulder.” He said given the current real estate market, it was unlikely they could sell the property to pay off the loan. He felt they were left with no viable options. He opined that it was “grossly unfair” that cost of repairing the road, after “years of neglect,” should fall on a “small group of property owners” in that area. He urged the council to work toward a more equitable solution. Pam Hirsh , 3210 Storey Boulevard, said she had lived on Storey Boulevard for seven years. She felt the street was very busy and asked the council to consider who uses the street and who should pay for the road project. She had talked to many people and it seemed that everyone thought there should be a more fair way of distributing the costs. She agreed that the project should go forward. Bill Hirsh , 3210 Storey Boulevard, Ward 2, stated that he had lived in the area for 25 years. He could recall very little street improvement over that course of time. He agreed that there was a lot of traffic on Storey Boulevard and wanted the assessments to be spread out over more of the users. Jacque Seim , 3391 Elmira Road, said she was a third generation Eugene resident. She related that her home had been built in 1900. She noted that Elmira Road had been a county road until 1964. It was her understanding that the City annexed the road because it was projected to become a main collector street due to increases in population that were predicted for the area and that part of this included an agreement to improve it. She did not think any improvements had occurred, with the exception of filling potholes. She stated that all of the area residents were working class people who worked hard to make ends meet. She related that she had purchased her house 16 years earlier for $90,000. She said the assessment for the property was $27,000. She noted that this was nearly one-third of the original cost of the house, adding her feeling that it was too much. She asked the council to please look at the policy regarding street assessments. She felt that traffic in Eugene was much heavier than it was when the policy had been crafted 50 years ago. Colette Ramirez , 884 Taylor Street, stated that she worked for the City as a Skate Program Coordinator for the Outdoor Program, though she was speaking as an individual. She asked for the council’s continued support for building a Washington/Jefferson skate park. She related that according to organizations such as the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) and the National Recreation Parks Association, research showed that positive recreation opportunities, such as a regional sized skate park, would enhance the livability of a community. She believed that the proposed park would provide positive recreation opportunities all year long, enhance the safety of the area, enhance the aesthetic value of the area, and would provide a place for year-round fitness. She averred that the future of the city lay in creating the most livable community citizens could envision. Price Armstrong , 1745 Moon Lee Lane, University of Oregon student and financial officer for the University student group Live Move, a group that promotes livability and sustainability in communities, asked the council to support the “Idaho stop” law. He related that when a bicyclist was “cranking along” in a lower gear, it made it difficult to come to a full stop and regain full speed. He was also challenged by having his feet clipped in to the pedals. He said a friend had received a traffic ticket for rolling through a stop sign on a bicycle and had been financially challenged to pay it as he was a student. Marlene Varady , 420 Crest Drive, Ward 2, provided remonstrance petitions. She also submitted some supplemental information she had provided in bullet-point form. She was glad that the Elmira Road area was also being assessed because she felt this brought to light that the assessment methodology affected residents of the whole city. She believed it was the right time, given the current economy, to change the code. She said they could not get signatures to remonstrate from the Wayne Morse Family Farm or from the school. She felt that Senator Morse would have tried to consider another way to make the street repairs happen. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting Majeska Seese-Green , PO Box 1214, Ward 7, reported that the Whiteaker Community Council had held its annual meeting and elections. She related that 15 people had been elected to the board. She felt that the turnout had been good. She added that the new chair was Kari Johnson, and noted that she would no longer serve on the board. She supported the proposed skate park. She looked forward to having it near her home. She also urged the council to support the “Idaho stop” bill. Additionally, she had been pleased that the council had reinstated the acting Police Auditor, and that this had been done in an open session. Regarding the railroad pesticide spraying, she wanted to register her agreement with everything Ms. Chirillo stated. She wanted the City to ensure that the railroad had done everything it could to get notification in place prior to future spraying. She said the position of the neighborhood council was that the City should urge Union Pacific to utilize non-toxic modes of weed control. She stated that she would send the council an email regarding the rest of her testimony. Michael Quillin , 2735 Kismet Way, Ward 8, wished to express his support for the office of the Police Auditor. He was pleased that the council restored the acting Police Auditor to her position. He opined that it seemed the only City office that appeared to receive adequate oversight was the auditor’s office and he found this concerning. He believed that the council was quick to fault Ms. Reynolds for the breach of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) she had signed with the Police Chief and that each delay of the institution of police oversight was a violation of the City charter. He expressed amazement that the council had “been quick” to place Ms. Reynolds on administrative leave when, he asserted, police officers accused of using “unlawful deadly force remain on active duty.” He added his support for construction of a world- class skate park in Eugene. Dawn Marlan , 920 Crest Drive, remarked that despite the fact that she lived on Crest Drive, she was “not rich.” She related that she and her husband lived on one academic salary with no way of increasing their income. She said when they bought their house they were informed that the most the street assessment could cost them would be $10,000 and that this would be unlikely. She stated that at presently the assessment was $20,000. She and her husband would not have bought their house had they known in advance how much they would be assessed, should the street project happen. She said they had other debts and two children who were their priorities over “shouldering a disproportionate amount of the burden for creating a perfect street in the middle of a recession.” Sue Kelly , 3260 Storey Boulevard, said she had lived in Eugene for 30 years and had rented all of her life. She stated that she was a letter carrier who had delivered mail on routes “all over Eugene and Springfield.” She loved Eugene; for her it was an organism that was growing. She thought it had outgrown its current form, including the way the street repairs were assessed. She did not think Eugene was a conglomerate of different neighborhoods; it was a city in which everyone should pay for its streets. She felt that the current street assessment methodology was divisive and painful. She also wanted to mention the skate park in order to add her voice to those in support. She averred that it would create an opportunity akin to a “jewel in our crown.” She opined that Eugene was the greatest city for the arts and outdoors and skating was an art that was outdoors. She also agreed with the bicyclists in support of the “Idaho stop” law. Moshe Immerman , 2595½ McLean Boulevard, hoped everyone was taking time to enjoy the wildflowers of spring. He thanked the council for reinstating the acting Police Auditor. He had engaged in lengthy meetings with her and felt that she was “among the most competent, pristine, high-integrity public officials” he had encountered in Oregon. He asserted that he was an “incident commander in the national park service of inter-agency federal law enforcement teams… protecting sacred sites of Native Americans, keeping paramilitary groups out of national parks.” He averred that her standard of integrity met his. He empha- sized his support for Ms. Reynolds and that he believed that she had a lapse and this was because she was human. He supported strong police oversight and asked that the council consider Ms. Reynolds as a leading MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting candidate for the office of Police Auditor. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Clark thanked everyone for attending the forum. He had been impressed by the number of people who spoke on a variety of issues. With regard to the road improvement projects, he wanted to reiterate his belief that it would be “just wrong” for anyone to lose their house in order to improve the road in front of it. He said the council and the residents being called upon to pay the assessments needed a better answer than the current one for assessments. He also wished to note that the people in his ward, Ward 5, had a particular park they really wanted to see developed in the north side of town. While he was sensitive to the need to get that park done, he understood the need for the skate park and that it had been in planning longer. He added that his son greatly admired Tony Hawk and loved skateboarding and when he said he understood how important skateboarding was to some people, he really did understand it. Councilor Zelenka thanked everyone who spoke in the public forum. He remarked that he had initially been reluctant to support HB 2690, the “Idaho stop” law, because of a concern for safety. He averred that stop signs were situated in places that were dangerous. He was also skeptical that the law would increase ridership. Nonetheless, after hearing testimony, he felt more inclined to support the law. Regarding the skate park, he said he appreciated the need for a covered park in this area. He believed a world-class sheltered skate park would be an asset to the community. Councilor Ortiz related that Mayor’s committee on the neighborhood issues related to the railroad had been meeting monthly and had been interacting with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). She thought the spraying by the railroad company should be “bumped up” in priority. She said the railroad did not provide specific information about when it planned to conduct its spraying. She also wished to stress that the council did not oversee the Police Department; the Police Auditor was based on the quality-assurance model. She stated that the reason the auditor received the attention of the council was because the auditor was the employee of the council. She said the council’s other employees were the City Manager and the Municipal Court judge. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone who spoke. She reiterated that the street assessment policy had bothered her for years and that her feeling was that it was “absolutely wrong.” She said if the council changed the policy, it would not take effect for six months. She also did not see how more people would bicycle if they did not have to stop at stop signs. She did not believe Eugene’s support of the law would make a difference at the Legislature. She added that when she first heard about the proposed legislation, she had been chiefly concerned that children would run the stop signs without paying adequate attention to traffic. Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for everyone who came out for the meeting, adding that if they were going to spend this much time hearing testimony, it was good to hear quality testimony. He believed the fact that the stop law had been in effect for a number of years in another state without major problems was a powerful argument. He was interested in revisiting the issue. He also thought the skate park was a “fabulous idea.” He recalled having been involved in the development of a skate park in Springfield some years back and having invited Tony Hawk to town. He noted that they had been able to garner a $25,000 contribution from Mr. Hawk for the park and suggested that Mr. Hawk might be willing to contribute again. He said he would be happy to be involved in a skate park in Eugene. He considered the assessment conversation to be difficult. He wished to clarify that the homeowners were not bearing the majority of the burden for paying the assessments for the road in front of their houses. He pointed out that almost two- thirds of the money to be spent on Elmira Road was coming from the City of Eugene, which meant that the people of Eugene were paying that amount. He acknowledged that the other one-third was not an easy burden to bear. He agreed that a system that had worked well 50 years earlier might not be a great system MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting in the present. He thought they should reexamine how the street assessments were allocated in the present. He was not certain how that discussion would affect the road projects planned for the Crest Drive and Elmira Road areas. He averred that it was a difficult burden for residents along the street to bear. He echoed Councilor Clark, declaring that he would not want to see someone lose their home over the assessments. Mayor Piercy commended the testimony, stating that everyone had spoken very eloquently. She thanked them for the “high quality conversation” they had provided. She called for a seven-minute break at 9:13 p.m. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - 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 Session - March 2, 2009, Regular Session - March 3, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting B. Approval to 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 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street, Eugene, Oregon and amending Resolution No. 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 Mayor Piercy stated that the majority of the Consent Calendar had been passed during the preceding Work Session. She noted that Items C, E, and F had been deferred. Councilor Zelenka thought the projects that had been submitted for Neighborhood Matching Grants were worthy but a couple of them seemed like they were school projects, as opposed to neighborhood projects. He wondered what the criteria was, noting that all of the projects had been proposed by neighborhood groups. Cindy Clarke, with the Neighborhood Services Division of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), stated that the funds to be allocated for projects on school grounds was consistent with Resolution No. 4632, established in the year 2000. She stated that the resolution specifically identified school site councils as eligible applicants. She related that the grants had funded ten school projects since then. Councilor Clark noted that one project had been the restoration of Spring Creek in Santa Clara, a project initiated by the Santa Clara Community Organization and on e that had been featured in the Register Guard. He related that the money was going predominantly toward the trees and native plants for the children and the community members to plant, as well as the educational process around it. He considered it to be a fantastic effort. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting City Attorney Glenn Klein pointed out that given that the rest of the Consent Calendar had already been passed, the individual items pulled from it would require separate motions. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to fund the FY09 Neighborhood Matching Grant proposals as recommended by the department ad- visory committee. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Consent Calendar Item E, Councilor Solomon said she had been convinced to support the project, but would like more information. She understood that the total cost of the project was $892,000. Landscape Architect for the Parks and Open Space Division, Emily Proudfoot, responded that the cost had come down to $820,000 since the original estimate. Councilor Solomon ascertained from Ms. Proudfoot that the division was applying for $210,000 which the City was intended to match with a sum of money. Ms. Proudfoot clarified that the City was expected to match the funding with $292,000. Councilor Solomon understood that the skate group had committed to raising $250,000, but there was still a gap. Ms. Proudfoot stated that since the memorandum had been written, the Eugene Rotary Club had committed to bringing in another $50,000. Councilor Solomon asked who would own the park upon completion. Ms. Proudfoot replied that the City of Eugene would be the owner. Councilor Solomon surmised that the City would then be responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Ms. Proudfoot responded that there was a lot of good feeling in the community about this project. She anticipated that the City would have help in that regard. Councilor Poling asked if the project would displace the horseshoe pits. Ms. Proudfoot replied that at this point, the horseshoe pits would remain where they were. Councilor Poling recalled skateboarding as a youth, before skateboards had become modernized. He said he had originally voted against the project because he felt they lacked information. He stated that the City’s match would come from parks Systems Development Charges (SDCs) specifically collected for parks development; the money could not be used to fill potholes or hire employees. He now felt that for the investment the City would make, it was getting more than it’s “money’s worth.” He thought the proposed park project would enhance things for the skaters and would bring in some additional revenues to the community. He supported the application for the grant. Councilor Ortiz observed that the grant was due by April 3. Ms. Proudfoot confirmed this. She said staff had applied for the grant during the council break. She had talked with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) and staff there indicated that they were willing to accept the grant application with an unsigned resolution. Councilor Ortiz asked what the City’s chances were for receiving the money. Ms. Proudfoot replied that it was difficult to predict. She thought it was the kind of project the department was interested in, noting that three or four skate parks had been funded in the previous year. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their work on this project. She shared the website for the project: www.skateeugene.org. She stressed that she wanted to support youth and if there was this much energy around the project, it should be supported. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve Resolution 4960, a resolution supporting application for State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Lo- MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 11 Regular Meeting cal Government Grant matching funds for parks. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanim- ously, 8:0. Regarding Consent Calendar Item F, Councilor Zelenka asked staff to explain why the code amendments were being initiated at this point. Senior Planner Terri Harding replied that the request to have the council initiate the land use code amendments was a function required by the Eugene City Code. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen next. Ms. Harding responded that the community members on the task teams would take their recommendations before the Planning Commission at the end of April and, depending on the commission’s recommendation, the amendments would be brought before the council for hearings. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to initiate infill compatibility stan- dards and opportunity siting code amendments. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanim- ously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions on Legislative Policy from March 11 and April 1, 2009 Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson began the review of the non-unanimous Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) actions on legislative policy. House Bill 2831 – Provides that temporary employees be included in the definition of ‘appropriate bargaining unit’ for purposes of collective bargaining between public employers and public employees. Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would also prohibit public employers from hiring permanent replacements for public employees engaged in lawful strikes. She said staff recommended adoption of a Priority 3 Oppose position; a motion to change the position to Priority 3 Support had been made but died for lack of a second. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 2831. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in opposition. House Bill 2690 – Referred to as the “Idaho bike stop” bill, the bill would permit a person on a bicycle to roll through a stop sign at an intersection if there was no cross traffic. Ms. Wilson reported that staff had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position and the CCIGR had not pulled the bill for discussion. She said because the position had been unanimously supported, the City had adopted a Priority 3 Oppose position at the Legislature. She related that the Mayor, however, had asked that the bill be revisited in the CCIGR on April 1. She explained that a motion had been made to change the Priority 3 Oppose position to a neutral position, but the motion failed, 2:1. She noted that there had been a hearing on the bill in the Transportation Committee and she believed the bill was not going to move. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Neutral position on House Bill 2690. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to substitute a motion to adopt a Support position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark asked Ms. Wilson to explain why the recommendation had been to oppose the bill. He had heard compelling testimony to support the bill. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had been assigned to five different staff members in five different areas of the City and all of them had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position. She said one reason for opposition that had stood out was that the terminology and the way the bill was written made it hard to implement. She noted that the testimony during the hearing had echoed this. She explained that the bill did not define what was slowing to a safe speed and how one would know what speed that would be, especially law enforcement. She stated that the committee members had also raised the issue of the “messaging” from the bicycle community. She said staff had opposed the bill during the previous legislative session when it had been introduced for the same reasons. Councilor Poling indicated that he would not support anything but an oppose position. He felt that a change in the law would “open up the road.” His concerns were that it could lead to allowing other modes of transportation to forego stopping at stop signs and that it did not restrict the rolling stops to certain areas. He averred that stop signs and stoplights had been placed for safety reasons. He believed that the transportation system needed to be consistently safe for all people. Councilor Ortiz respected staff recommendations “99.9 percent of the time.” She said occasionally the councilors took a stance that was “against the norm.” She was willing to support a neutral position. She said, given that Ms. Wilson had indicated that the bill was not moving, she did not think the council should send her back with instructions to work on the bill. Councilor Pryor concurred with Councilor Ortiz. He had been originally inclined to oppose the bill. He did not think he could support the bill at this point, without further information, but he was willing to support adoption of a neutral position. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute a Priority 3 Support position failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in support. Roll call vote; the main motion to adopt a Neutral position passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. House Bill 2842 – Would repeal Ballot Measure 57 and all related provisions. Ms. Wilson noted that Ballot Measure (BM) 57 had been passed in 2008. She said staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position, but Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to a Priority 2 Support and received no second. Councilor Taylor explained that her feeling was that the prisons were already overloaded and BM 57 should be repealed. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 2842. Councilor Clark asked for a brief synopsis of BM 57. Ms. Wilson replied that HB 2842 would roll back the sentencing enhancements that were passed by the voters. She said BM 57 had been the “kinder and gentler” version of the measure submitted by Kevin Mannix and was less costly. She stated that the reason staff recommended adoption of an Oppose position was because the measure covered property crimes, the “number one problem” in Eugene. She added that because the bill would repeal a ballot measure, a two- third majority was required to overturn it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 13 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy surmised that the bill was not moving in the Legislature. She commented, for the record, that she did not like either one of the ballot measures that had been submitted to the popular vote. She thought they did “a big disservice to the State.” While she wanted people to be held accountable, she felt the measures were a drain on resources. Councilor Zelenka concurred. He thought it was internally inconsistent to say on one hand that we should not support a bill because of a lack of jail space and, on the other hand, to oppose the repeal of a bill that would jail more offenders. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Zelenka, and Taylor voting in op- position. House Bill 2875 – Would allow a taxpayer to elect to defer payment of increased property taxes attributable to annexation of property by a city. Ms. Wilson said the bill would allow for deferral of taxes for a ten-year period after the effective date of annexation. She stated that staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position, which was in line with adopted legislative policies. She related that Councilor Taylor had made a motion to change the position to Support, but had not received a second. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a position of Priority 2 Oppose on House Bill 2875. Councilor Clark asked who sponsored the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that Senator Vicki Walker and Representatives Chris Edwards and Mitch Greenlick had sponsored it. Mayor Piercy did not believe it was necessary to take a position on the bill. Councilor Taylor thought they should support it because she believed “it was only fair.” She averred that a person who was annexed should not have to be subjected to an increase in property taxes. Councilor Ortiz pointed out that the City of Eugene did not annex people against their will. She preferred adoption of a neutral stance on the bill. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute a motion to adopt a Priority 2 Support position on the bill. Councilor Clark believed that the way the ‘190 agreements’ were set up with the County, someone who wanted to build substantially, was forced to annex to the City. He said it was a difficult choice. He commented that he would prefer that the County resume responsibility for permitting for county residents. He thought the bill would provide a reasonable way to help such construction be more affordable. Councilor Poling could not support the substitute motion. He read staff comments provided by Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division Larry Hill which indicated that the bill would allow any owner of recently annexed property to defer City property taxes for up to ten years, and the state would have a lien against the property. He related that after ten years or when the property was sold, the deferred taxes plus interest would be payable to the Oregon Department of Revenue. He stated that no additional money would be appropriated to cover the bill’s financial impact to the County and City. He considered the bill to be bad legislation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 14 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the substitute motion failed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the original motion to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position passed, 6:2; counci- lors Taylor and Clark voting in opposition. House Bill 2961 – Would allow a municipality to impose local requirements for construction of new structures that would be more stringent than state building code. Ms. Wilson stated that staff had recommended adoption of a neutral stance on the bill. She related that Councilor Poling wished to change this to a Priority 3 Oppose because he felt the statewide building code should be consistent and this motion had resulted in a 2:1 vote with Councilor Taylor dissenting. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 2961. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Or- tiz voting in opposition. House Bill 2979 – Would require that places of public accommodation allow customer access to employee toilet facilities if a customer had certain medical conditions and provided for a punishment of a maximum fine of $90 for violations. Ms. Wilson stated that staff had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position. She related that Councilor Ortiz had moved to monitor the bill and had not received a second. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Wilson to review the conditions included in the bill. Ms. Wilson explained that the list included use of any ostomy device, Krohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and any inflammatory bowel disease. She said one issue raised by staff was that the bill provided no way for an employee of a public facility to know whether or not a person had one of those medical conditions. Mayor Piercy commented that in the case of someone with an extreme medical condition it did seem unreasonable to deny access to a restroom. She suggested that they choose to monitor the bill or to ask for an amendment requiring that a person carry an affidavit regarding their condition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose posi- tion to House Bill 2979. Councilor Ortiz asked where the bill was going. Ms. Wilson replied that it was not moving. Councilor Poling said the reason he opposed the bill was that it would allow customers access to employee toilet facilities. He pointed out that public restrooms were required to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He felt that employees should not be exposed to unnecessary risks and, as such, he could not support the bill. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson said the bill did not explain how someone would determine if a person should have the right to access an employee bathroom. She remarked that it was a difficult bill to administer. Councilor Zelenka thought the bill came from a good intent but was badly executed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 15 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor commented that anyone could come into a public place and claim they had irritable bowel syndrome or ulcerative colitis and it would be impossible to prove. He did not think the state would begin to issue cards proving that a person had one of these disorders. He could not support the bill. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Ortiz voting in opposition. House Bill 3031 – Would extend local government approval of residential development permits for two years. Ms. Wilson related that staff had recommended adoption of a neutral stance because the City Council had not taken a position on it. She said Councilor Poling had made a motion to adopt a Priority 3 Support position and had not received a second. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a neutral position on House Bill 3031. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend the motion to change the position to Priority 3 Support. Councilor Poling said he supported the bill because it would extend the expiration date for residential developments for two years beyond the present expiration. He thought that given the current economic times, it would be prudent to be more lenient on projects that were not completed on time. He did not think this would create a financial impact on the City. He noted that other jurisdictions were doing this. Councilor Solomon concurred. Councilor Clark averred that it made sense to keep the plumbers, roofers, and framers working. He said if a project had already received its permit, it would be good to give the builders some extra time to get the financing. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson stated that while the bill did not include a specific sunset, it would only apply to those permits that would expire on or after the effective date of the act and before July 1, 2011. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in opposi- tion. House Bill 3056 – Would require a 50 percent increment to be added to the total assessed value of property within urban renewal area whenever the increment equaled the total assessed value. Ms. Wilson stated that staff had recommended a Priority 2 Oppose position because this was in line with adopted legislative policies. She said Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to a Priority 2 Support and had not received a second. She noted that Councilor Taylor indicated that she wanted to support the bill because she believed it would provide more money for the General Fund. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 3056. Councilor Brown asked what financial effect the bill would have on the downtown area. Ms. Wilson replied that staff had reported that the bill would have an immediate impact on the downtown district and the impact MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 16 Regular Meeting on the riverfront district was unknown. She explained that it would require 50 percent of the increment to be added to the assessed value of a property. Councilor Brown observed that the purpose of the urban renewal program was to increase values of properties that were undervalued. He found it interesting that there were bills “popping up” that seemed to want to reexamine urban renewal and he thought it was a good idea to do so. Councilor Clark said he would support the motion, but he agreed that they should have a discussion on urban renewal. He noted his opposition to urban renewal. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Committee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the March 11, and April 1, 2009, Intergovernmental Relations Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those Intergovernmental Relations Committee meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to extend the meeting by 15 mi- nutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1, Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. 4. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution 4970 Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Constructing Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Street Lights, Stormwater Drainage, Water Quality Facilities, on Elmira Road from Bertelsen Road to Maple Street and Maple Street from Elmira Road to Roosevelt Boulevard (Job # 4275 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Hearings Official minutes, findings, and recommendations dated April 9, 2009 and to adopt Resolution 4970 forming a Local Improvement District for paving, constructing curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, stormwater drainage, water quality facilities, on Elmira Road from Bertelsen Road to Maple Street and Maple Street from Elmira Road to Roosevelt Boulevard (Job #4275). Mr. Schoening acknowledged that there was strong support for the project, but the issue was really about the cost of the assessments. He noted that when assessments had been discussed at the work session held earlier in the year, assessments for the Elmira Road project were estimated to be $180 per front foot and $200 per front foot for the Crest project. He reported that the bids had come in at 28 percent less and assessments for the Elmira/Maple project had fallen to $125 per front foot. He explained that this meant it would cost $6,250 for a 50-foot frontage and the average cost for a residence was $9,800. He reiterated that the City was paying $2.1 million, two-thirds of the cost, from SDCs. Mr. Schoening shared the councilors concerns that people should not lose a house over the street improve- ments. He stated that the council instituted a low-income assistance program several years earlier which would provide a subsidy that ranged from one-third to five-sixths of the cost for single-family homes that were owner-occupied. He said 34 property owners had qualified for this assistance. He noted that there would be a second opportunity to apply. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 17 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy observed that the bids would not likely be lower than they currently were. She asked if the City would consider any other extenuating circumstances aside from income level. Mr. Schoening replied that there was nothing specific in the code, aside from income level. Councilor Ortiz complimented Mr. Schoening and his staff for doing “an amazing job” of working with the community. She also did not want anyone to lose their home. She understood that it could be difficult to keep one’s “head above water.” She said it was time for the projects to move ahead. She wanted to support the motion. She recalled the River Avenue process, in which the River Avenue property owners had protested the planned level of development and had been sent “to the drawing board.” She said they had returned with less of a project, but by the time they had completed the work, the cost had escalated and the project cost more money. She stressed that the street improvements were not going to get cheaper with time. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Klein stated that because of the charter, it was not possible to change the code retroactively. He said it would be possible to add more money to the City’s share of the road project. He noted that the proposed motion would form the Local Improvement District (LID) and would not impose the assessment. He explained that the assessment ordinance would not likely be adopted before January, 2010, and if the council could come up with more money, it could be applied to the project and reduce the assessments to the residents. Councilor Clark averred that it would never be less expensive to do the project. He wanted to state “loudly and clearly” that no one would be losing a house to fix the road. He said he would be more comfortable if the council could send the project back to a work session to discuss some of the principles the decision would be based upon. He did not want to endanger the deadline either and asked if there was room for the council to work on the assessments further. Mr. Schoening responded that the options, according to City code, were to move forward, to substantially modify it, to delay approval for 15 days, or to abandon the improvements. Councilor Solomon requested that a work session be scheduled as soon as possible to “take another run” at the assessment policy. She wanted to do this before the assessments for the project were to be finalized. She was particularly concerned about the people who could only access their cul-de-sacs via Elmira Road, but were not being asked to participate in the paving project. Mr. Schoening noted that the mobile home park was being assessed for the project. Councilor Pryor said he could support the LID because he could make the “leap of faith” that the City could find a way to have an impact on the level of assessments. He agreed that the council should have a conversation regarding the assessments, going forward. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Klein clarified that the council had the authority to make the changes in the code regarding assessments. Councilor Clark understood that the formula for assessments was in the code regarding which costs were assessable to the adjacent properties. He thought one way to change it would be to change what costs could be assessed, rather than the whole policy. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Mr. Schoening that the project was past the point of being potentially modified in terms of sidewalks and other amenities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 18 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Schoening stated that the City provided financing at 8 percent, which was an interim rate until the City sold bonds. He said when the bonds were sold, the rate would be based on the bond rates and would include administrative costs. Councilor Solomon remarked that a loan could be obtained from a bank for less. Mr. Schoening responded that there was no requirement for property owners to finance through the City. Councilor Solomon asked if the project would qualify for stimulus money. Mr. Schoening replied that it met the criteria, but all of the transportation dollars that had come to Oregon were already allocated. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Clark voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 19 Regular Meeting