Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: August 10, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 3A 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 May 11, 2009, City Council Meeting, May 26, 2009, City Council Meeting, June 8, 2009, City Council Meeting, June 10, 2009, Work Session, June 15, 2009, Public Hearing, and June 22, 2009, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. May 11, 2009, City Council Meeting B. May 26, 2009, City Council Meeting C. June 8, 2009, City Council Meeting D. June 10, 2009, Work Session E. June 15, 2009, Public Hearing F. June 22, 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\M090810\S0908103A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 11, 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. Carol Berg-Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, invited the councilors to attend a town hall on tasers, to be held on May 21, in the Training Room of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She said panelists would share their views and there would be questions and answers with the audience. She noted that the panel included James Salisbury, father of Ryan Salisbury – a young man who was shot and killed by police officers responding to a call for help from the family. She greatly respected Mr. Salisbury for his willingness to share his personal tragedy with the community and to provide input. She hoped the Police Chief or another Eugene Police Department (EPD) designee would attend. She noted that Police Commissioner Juan Carlos Valle had indicated that he would attend. She provided copies of the flier for the event to the council. Maritza Herrera , 2583 Park View, stated that she was a resident of North Eugene. She requested that there be a park for the area. She said when she took her dog for a walk she had to drive to Alton Baker Park or to Armitage Park, which cost $3. She related that her fiancée loved to play soccer and had to drive south to do so. She understood that land had been purchased for parks in South Eugene, but parks were really needed in North Eugene. Margaret Thumel , P.O. Box 1966, had been recently annoyed by some of the things that the City of Eugene was doing and proposing. She objected to spending $6.2 million on a bicycle flyover from Willagillespie Road over an abandoned quarry and freeway. She opined that the idea of charging a fee to garbage collectors was “hare-brained.” She called this a “phantom tax” for the City to repair potholes. She had been galled by the request for matching funds from the City of Eugene, available for the project from Systems Development Charges (SDCs), for a skate park. She averred that she did not know where the councilors lived or “which reality zone” they were in, but she considered these types of decisions to be irresponsible. She asserted that the number one responsibility of the council was public safety. She alleged that the City had the lowest per capita amount of police officers in the nation; it was not uncommon for the City of Eugene to have only five officers on duty at one time. She observed that Lane County Jail was letting felons out guided by a matrix based on the dangers the felons posed to the community, rather than a time matrix. She asked the councilors when they had last done a ride-along with a sergeant of EPD during a regular shift. She asked the council to forget the skate park and the “other tidbits” and prioritize public safety first. Erik Humphrey , 777 High Street, Suite 120, vice president of the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA), indicated that he was providing testimony specifically under the guise of Eugene Code (EC) 2.400(2) to file an MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting official complaint against a City Council employee, interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds. He stated that in accordance with EC 2.400(1), he filed an official complaint against Ms. Reynolds on April 10, 2009, in his capacity as an Executive Board member of the EPEA on behalf of the EPEA President. He had been notified by City Attorney Glenn Klein that the initial determination of the complaint was that it fell outside the scope of the council’s formal complaint process. He averred that Mr. Klein’s conclusion was that the complaint involved an allegation of misconduct but was not one that involved a violation of federal, state, or local laws. Because of this, he said, the council would not take further action under EC 2.400 through 2.412. He had been perplexed by this finding and the council’s lack of action. He asserted that the complaint dealt with retaliatory measures against the EPEA president due to his union affiliation. He asked how they could know for a fact that no violation of the laws had occurred without a formal and professional investigation into the evidence. He stated that the process had apparently come to an end and he was now before the council in accordance with EC 2.400(2) which stated that any complaints that do not allege a violation of law shall not be considered by the council as part of this process but may be presented by a complainant to the City Council at its Public Forum. He asked the council to please consider his presentation as a formal complaint of an allegation of misconduct against interim Police Auditor, Dawn Reynolds, under EC 2.400(2). He provided the specific complaint in writing. He thanked the council for its time in dealing with the matter. Michael Quillin , 2735 Kismet Way, Ward 8, expressed dismay that the Police Chief had decided to adopt a taser policy. He believed it was premature to make this decision without having consulted with the Police Commission and the public at large. He opined that this was akin to the former chief’s determination that no misconduct had occurred when a protester had been tased while allegedly resisting arrest in 2008. He reiterated the invitation to the town hall meeting on tasers. Randy Prince , P.O. Box 927, requested that the City conduct a thorough review of zoning in light of new hazard information that may have been received over the preceding ten years. He said the relevance of this had to do with how they might acquire the Beverly property and what it might cost. He felt that it would also call to question how legally defensible the siting of critical facilities might be if they were in flood zone areas that were not developable before the dams had been constructed; dams, he asserted ,were now recognized to be seismically “under-engineered.” He believed the Goal 7 process was required for the City. He averred that “after some landslides killed people in Oregon,” the legislature revised Goal 7 so that when new hazard information came in, the zoning was to be “looked at.” He said Part B of the law included a description of how the state was supposed to collect the information and then order counties to do things. He alleged that the state had never done this and the Legislature had held hearings to find out why this was not happening. He believed that if information was known, the City would be required to follow the goals in Part A. He asserted that the Beverly property was in a landslide zone and should be rezoned. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, said a public hearing on the “big O” on Autzen Stadium was being held at 1:00 p.m. on May 13. He related that someone had challenged it, adding “more power to them.” He opined that the ‘O’ was too big and was not legal. He appreciated that the hearing had been added to the Public Meetings Calendar. He asked if Councilor Clark would be available on July 10 or July 17 to participate in a City Club discussion on the possible use of the EWEB headquarters building as a City Hall. He indicated that he would welcome participation from the other councilors or the Mayor as well. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for sharing their thoughts. She indicated that she had gone on a police ride-along and had also participated in the Citizens’ Police Academy. She encouraged all of her colleagues to do the same, adding that she wished the councilors could learn about all City services in the same way. Councilor Clark agreed that North Eugene needed more parks. He said he also had participated in the citizens’ academy during his tenure on the Police Commission. He had gone on a ride-along but believed he should go on another. Regarding Mr. Humphrey’s official complaint, he asked the City Manager to suggest the next responsible steps having heard the complaint based on the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting Mr. Klein requested the opportunity to get back to the council in writing with some options. He interpreted the code as having provided a formal process for filing certain kinds of complaints and then, as a “catch all,” if something did not fall within that parameter it was not covered by the process. Councilor Clark said he had been “intrigued” by how every complaint against an officer was required to be investigated, but other types of complaints were not often investigated. He asked legal counsel to comment on this duality. Councilor Clark indicated that he was willing to speak at the City Club. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - March 9, 2009, City Council Meeting - March 11, 2009, Work Session B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4973 Authorizing an Electric Utility System Line of Credit Agreement in the Aggregate Principal Amount of Not to Exceed Forty-Six Million Three Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($46,355,000) for the Purpose of Financing and Refinancing the Harvest Wind Project and Providing for Related Matters D. Adoption of Resolution 4974 Authorizing the Electric Utility System Refunding revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount of No to Exceed Forty-Six Million Three Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($46,355,000) for the Purpose of Financing and Refinancing the Harvest Wind Project and Providing for Related Matters E. Approval of Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program F. Adoption of Resolution 4975 Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (City Landbank Site/County Farm Road Annexation / A 09-1) G. Initiation of Metro Plan Amendment to Return River Ridge/Jeffries Property to Low-Density Residential H. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of April 1, 2009, and April 8, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Zelenka pulled Item E. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item E was ap- proved unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka indicated that he had pulled Item E, approval of a Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing Program because he felt it deserved to be talked about. Stephanie Jennings, Grants Manager for the Community Development Division, explained that the City had been notified that it would be receiving federal funds for homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing. She said the program would help people facing financial challenges remain in their homes as well as helping the City address growing homelessness within the community. She related that there had been a 25 percent increase in the one-night homelessness count and there had been a significant increase in unemployment. She believed that the funding would make a difference in the number of households who were experiencing critical needs at this time. She stated that the City would be partnering with Lane County, noting that the County had also solicited $700,000 in homelessness and rapid re-housing funds. Councilor Zelenka also wished to comment on Items C and D. He observed that EWEB was purchasing wind power, making it one of the greenest utilities in the country. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy noted that Item E would not only address the crisis at hand, but was in line with doing due diligence for following council goals. Roll call vote; Item E, approval of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program, was passed unanimously, 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 April 29 and May 6, 2009 Councilor Zelenka explained that Senate Bill (SB) 719 was a bill that would provide no-interest loans from a revolving loan fund it would establish to help finance eligible infrastructure projects in urban growth boundary areas. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt the staff recommended position of Priority 2 Support for Senate Bill 719. Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, noted that two other bills had not received unanimous support by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) but neither of them had made it past the dead bill deadline. She stated that the bill in question would establish the revolving fund, funding it from the issuance of lottery bonds from the State. She reported that the bill was moving and was currently in the Joint Ways and Means Committee. She said Councilor Taylor moved to change the position to Priority 2 Oppose and the motion had failed. Mayor Piercy recalled that the bill had to do with expansions that were already underway in the Portland area. Ms. Wilson confirmed this, noting that the money would also be available to other cities, should they choose to expand their Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). Councilor Brown agreed with Councilor Taylor. He felt the bill was premature, given that there had been no discussion of an expansion of the UGB in Eugene, the population study had yet to be completed, and the buildable land survey was also not done. He also pointed out that the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting work was not yet completed. He likened it to sitting at a table for a feast that had yet to occur. Councilor Zelenka observed that the money would come from the Economic Development Department in the form of no-interest loans. He noted that the State was running a deficit budget and questioned whether the money would be there. He also asked what sort of eligible infrastructure projects the loans would pay for. Ms. Wilson replied that the fund would be set up and administered by the Economic Development Department, but the money for the fund would come from the sale of state lottery bonds. She said lottery bonds funded a wide variety of projects including transportation, infrastructure, and water projects. She stated that SB 719 was in committee; the economic forecast would be received on May 15 after which the Joint Ways and Means Committee would release its budget. She explained that this would be the benchmark they would use to determine whether any of the bonds before it would be funded. She said, at present, when a local government expanded its UGB, it would not have the funds to invest in beginning infrastructure because the fees that pay for those projects had not yet been paid. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson stated that other communities that had such projects planned included Gresham, several cities in Washington County, Wilsonville, and a couple of other central Oregon cities. Councilor Poling wished to point out that the bill did not speak to the expansion of a UGB, it only provided cities an additional tool in the event that an expansion of the UGB was necessary. He averred that the no-interest loan could be a viable tool for any community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark understood that it would be accurate to say that some cities were under a requirement, due to growth, to expand a UGB. He said when a city had to expand the UGB and had to provide the infrastructure to do so, the bill would provide a mechanism to pay for it out of a loan from state funds rather than having to cut local programs in order to afford the requirement. Ms. Wilson responded that this was “one way to look at it.” Councilor Taylor asked what the interest rate on the loans would be. Ms. Wilson replied that the interest rate was zero. Councilor Taylor asked where the money would go if it did not go into the loans. Ms. Wilson responded that the bonds had not been sold yet; the bill would authorize the state to sell the bonds. She noted that, theoretically, the state had a finite amount of bonds that it could sell. Councilor Taylor commented that this was a far lower interest rate than what people paying street assessments were charged by the City. Councilor Zelenka was worried about unintended consequences. Ms. Wilson replied that it would provide communi- ties who wished to expand their UGBs, or who were forced to do so, additional resources. She thought it could provide an incentive for those communities that were thinking about expanding their UGBs, but did not have the financial resources to develop the infrastructure at the beginning of the expansion. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Brown, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Commit- tee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the April 29, and May 6, 2009, Intergovernmental Relations Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those Intergo- vernmental Relations Committee meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: Appointment to Civilian Review Board Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Tim Laue to Position 4 on the Civilian Review Board, the unexpired term of John Norton Cabell, for a term ending on October 31, 2009. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to substitute Marisa Mendoza for Position 4. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. 5. ACTION: Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission FY10 Regional Wastewater Pro- gram Budget and Capital Improvements Program Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the FY10 Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission Budget. Councilor Brown asked how the departure of Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. had impacted the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MSMC). Lori Davis, Business Manager for the Wastewater Division, explained that Hynix had been the largest industrial user and its departure had caused a large drop in revenue. Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Davis to explain the rationale behind the 18 percent increase. Ms. Davis replied that it was primarily to cover the 20-year facility plan, funded through the bond. She pointed out that the facility plan had been put into place to meet regulatory requirements. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Davis confirmed that a small portion of the increase was likely caused by the loss of Hynix. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: Resolution 4976 Authorizing a Contingent Loan Agreement to Secure a Borrowing by Lane Council of Governments Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4976 authorizing a Contingent Loan Agreement to secure a borrowing by Lane Council of Governments. Councilor Zelenka asked for an explanation of what the agreement was for and what the City’s liability would be. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager for the Finance Division, stated that the resolution would authorize a contingent loan agreement with the City and the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). She said LCOG was borrowing money for improvements planned for the Park Place Building, recently purchased by LCOG. She explained that LCOG had been caught “between a rock and a hard place,” as the project’s costs had increased and when they went to borrow money for it the bottom had fallen out of the credit market. She related that the resolution would help them to obtain the loan by saying the City would guarantee payments on the loan, in the event that was needed. She added that LCOG would create a reserve equal to one year of payments when the loan closed. She said as long as LCOG made the payments on time, the City would do nothing; if a payment was missed, the money would be drawn from the reserve and the City would replenish the reserve, to be paid back with interest by LCOG. She confirmed that in the worst case scenario, if LCOG could not make the payments, the City would be “on the hook” for the loan. She stated that the loan was a 10-year loan at approximately $70,000 per year and the City would take a position on some real estate that LCOG owned as security. Councilor Zelenka ascertained that the total amount of the loan was $550,000. Councilor Brown asked what was being used as collateral. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that equity in the Park Place Building and the Schaefer’s Building was being offered as collateral. She noted that the City would be in second position on both buildings; the equity being offered in collateral was in excess of the loan amount. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Brown, Ms. Cutsogeorge estimated the amount the City paid to LCOG in dues and contracts to be between $60,000 and $80,000. Councilor Brown asked what the money was for and the “worst possible thing” that would happen if the City did not help LCOG attain financing. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the money was for refurbishing the space for LCOG’s tenants. She said LCOG would have to pay for the work itself if it could not get a loan, and this would create an issue with its auditor, Jones & Roth. Councilor Taylor opined that the City would be taking a chance with taxpayers’ money. Councilor Pryor stated that he sat on the LCOG Board and had looked into the resolution in detail. He noted that LCOG had done this before; the County had acted as guarantor when LCOG purchased the Schaefer’s Building. He underscored his belief that the City would be guaranteeing a loan that LCOG could repay. He averred that the collateralization of both buildings made the City’s exposure minimal, as LCOG’s assets were better than what would be needed to cover the loan. He underscored that the bank was requiring a guarantor because of the current economic climate. He added that the building was an asset to the downtown. Councilor Clark stressed that he meant no disrespect to LCOG. He had received a number of comments from constituents. He understood that LCOG had bought the building for $6 million, but could have bought it for $3 MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting million a couple of years earlier and now wanted to make another $2 million in improvements to it. He was challenged to guarantee the loan when it seemed “extravagant.” Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to explain how spending the money would cause problems with LCOG’s auditor. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that LCOG would receive an audit finding on their annual audit report. Bob Swank, Associate Director of LCOG, explained that the audit finding that LCOG could potentially face would be that its reserves and its general fund had been reduced to possibly a negative or very low number. He underscored that the loan guarantee was not for a loan to pay for extravagance and that it had come from the economic climate; costs had gone up and LCOG had not been able to get a loan on its own. He stated that the reason LCOG needed to retain its general fund reserves was that it used those funds to make matching funds for “all kinds of grants, many of which would potentially relate to the City of Eugene.” Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Ortiz, Pryor, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Brown, Taylor, Clark, and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in fa- vor of the resolution and it passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 11, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 26, 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. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Carol Berg-Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, expressed appreciation for the organizers of the Taser Town Hall. She also appreciated that councilors Brown and Ortiz had attended. She thought it had been a “great evening.” She was glad that Councilor Ortiz had undertaken “some outreach” to “groups who might want to continue the conversation” in the community. She reported that the people who attended the meeting had continued for a half- hour after the town hall’s scheduled end. She believed there would be more town halls like the one held on tasers. She had been especially touched by the testimony provided by Jeff Salisbury, father of a young man who had been shot in front of his home by a Eugene police officer who had responded to a call for help there. She thanked those who had attended. Eugene Drix , Ward 3, said he was there to inspire everyone. He read a short poem he had written about Eugene. He said he was there to give Eugene a brand. He related that he had been to England for two weeks. He averred that the people in the village he had visited were “pretty much like us.” He stated that he lived in the West University Neighborhood. He had spoken with some of the homeless people who lived in that area, who he called No-Adds because they had no addresses. He related that homeless people were worried about crime. He believed the community was in a “mess of need.” He reiterated that there were two holes downtown and said he would like to fill a hole with art. He added that the way to give homeless people integrity would be to provide them with bathrooms. He closed by declaring his love for Eugene. Kathryn Schmieding , 823 Crest Drive, Ward 2, stated that she had lived on Crest Drive for 61 years. She had been heartened to hear that it would be repaired, but she was greatly concerned over the method of assessment. She said as a senior on a limited income, it would be difficult to come up with the amount she was going to be assessed. She believed the cost should be divided up among all of the people who use the street, including those who reside on the cul de sacs that can only access their houses from Crest Drive. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, Ward 1, asked if anyone knew who they should talk to MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting th regarding the proposed West 11 Avenue corridor for the EmX. He wondered if the councilors knew how many times City staff had met with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the Lane Council of Government (LCOG) Metro Waterways Study Group and the Lane Transit District (LTD) regarding the possible enhancement and “reconfiguration” of Amazon Creek. He declared that it would take more than 60 days to “digest” the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project when it came out in January, unless a person was already knowledgeable about the subject. He recalled that an LTD representative had spoken of transparency and public input when they had presented to the City Council several weeks earlier. He alleged that LTD “bristled” and “accused” him and his partner of inflammatory rhetoric for writing a letter to the editor. He asserted that he and his partner had the facts. He averred that the project had a “conjunction with the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) plan” that would affect major portions of businesses, neighborhoods, natural environments, traffic patterns and lifestyles. He asked if it was not time for the council to be more involved and “a lot more informed.” Pauline Hutson , 1025 Taylor Street, opined that the LTD work plan presented to the City Council was “pure sales pitch.” She averred that they were the “little people” in the situation. She said they did not have money to put on presentations and public relations events. She felt they had no one else to turn to; the th councilors were their representatives. She thought that if the council chose the 7 Avenue route it would prevent a route being built along the Amazon Creek. She knew a woman who worked as a housekeeper for a living. She asserted that because this person’s bus route had been eliminated, she was now commuting two hours per day. Helen Reed , 3260 Storey Boulevard, stated that she had moved into her house the previous spring. She had been shocked by the amount of the assessment. She felt it was unfair and excessive. She had joined Bill Eddie and others in the neighborhood to gather signatures of remonstrance against the assessment. She noted that of all of the people she had spoken with, only one had supported the assessment. She said everyone she spoke with wanted the road improvements. She added that the people who had worked on the project felt especially strongly about moving forward with the improvements. Jeffrey S. Librett , 920 Crest Drive, also wanted to remonstrate. He favored having the work done, but the assessment seemed unreasonably and outrageously high to him. He averred that it was unaffordable. He related that he had an academic salary that was fixed. He noted that academics in the northwest made less than anyone else in academics in the nation and academics in the humanities made even less than that. He and his wife had put all of their money into the house, in buying it and renovating it. He said when they had bought it five years earlier, they had been told that they would not be charged more than $10,000 for potential assessments and that amount would be payable over a number of years. He stated that he would not have bought the house had he known what the assessment was going to be. He noted that he had two small children. He considered the assessments to be especially unfair, given that many people used the streets. He averred that the assessment policy was an outmoded law. Toby Gamberoni , 691 Crest Drive, Ward 2, wondered if they could not find a solution that would “harmonize the different interests” in the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street area. He believed the assessment policy could be shifted so that the assessments could fall on a wider range of residents. He reiterated that many people use the road, noting that the elementary school caused a great deal of traffic. He averred that making the few responsible for the many was not appropriate. He felt that the assessments should be shifted more toward equality and looking out for the “weakest on the team” who might not be able to pay. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, provided a taser report he had written to “provide counterpoint.” He wanted the City to get tasers that included cameras because this would provide a better opportunity to determine if tasers were deployed reasonably. He noted his preference to have the tasers “gone altogether.” He read aloud some information regarding the “taser cam.” He added that Pete Kerns was a “good person to be a police chief.” He commended Acting Chief Kerns’ ability to communicate with the public. He opined that MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting with what was going on currently, it was not “time to change the guard.” He added that he also liked Police Captain Steve Swenson for the same reason. He asked that his packet of materials be forwarded to the Civilian Review Board and the Human Rights Commission. Bill Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, stated that 86 citizens had signed the petition remonstrating the Crest Drive project. He said the vast majority of the neighbors favored improving the road and understood the need to pay for them, but they believed the existing assessment policy to be unfair and unaffordable. He related that they were collectively asking the council to find a better way to fund the project and future projects in Eugene. He felt that if it took six months and the construction was delayed until the 2010 construction season, then the council should take the time to craft a more affordable policy. He said everyone felt the $10,000 to $20,000 assessment was onerous “even in the best of times.” He averred that no one should ever have to take a loan out on their house “to pay a tax.” He alleged that many of the people in the area would not qualify for a bank loan and would be forced to take a loan from the City at eight percent. He opined that this could be considered “predatory lending.” He believed that forcing someone into an unwanted loan raised both moral and legal questions. He declared that a small assessment shared among many made more sense than the current policy of “gouging the few to pay for the benefit of all.” He urged the council to accept the challenge to create a better assessment policy for all of Eugene. Marion Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, encouraged the council to work together to rethink the current means of assessment not only for the Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard area but for all of Eugene. She said the council had heard “many heart-felt stories” about why the present assessment policy was alarming. She asked the council to please listen to the neighbors and citizens. She averred that if they continued with the present policy, it would cause an undue and unfair financial burden. She had hope that the council could come up with a more fair assessment and still complete the road repairs. Sue Kelly , 97405, recalled that when she had been a letter carrier in Springfield 27 years ago, some road repairs had been done and the people she brought mail to had been assessed for them. She related that it had caused terrible hardships and some people had lost their homes. She believed they could come up with something better than the current mode of assessment. She had spent two days gathering signatures and everyone she had spoken with liked the project and appreciated the work the City had done to arrive at a design they approved of, but all of them were against the means of assessment. She agreed with Mr. Eddie; this was a City and not a group of neighborhoods “loosely strung together.” She said if all of the street projects were covered under one umbrella that everyone paid for, the City could have all of the streets that it needed. She quoted comments by the Mayor, Councilor Taylor, Councilor Clark, City Engineer Mark Schoening and Councilor Poling at the previous meeting that were in support of working on the assessment policy or were against causing hardship for people. Rick Robertson , 839 Crest Drive, stated that he had purchased his home in the Crest Drive area one year earlier. He had known that the assessments were coming up because the sellers had been forthright about it. He felt that the assessment process was not entirely fair. He wanted the City to work to find a more equitable way to pay for the improvements. Marlene Varady , 420 Crest Drive, Ward 2, agreed with everyone who spoke about the street assessments. She believed the area residents were asking the council to take on a “daunting task;” it would be a lot of work to change the law. She was sure several of the area residents would be glad to help with the process, if they could. She said they had worked hard to get the amount of signatures necessary for the remonstrance. She noted that the residents in the Elmira Road/Maple Street area had not “been so fortunate” and had not been able to get the number of signatures needed. She related that she had been asked at a Crest Association meeting whether she would be willing to pay for the Elmira Road area streets, too, and she had replied that “of course” she would. She wondered if it would be possible to reverse the ruling regarding the Elmira Road residents. She underscored that it was a difficult time to refinance or get MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting loans. She also wondered if the City might consider lowering the interest rate it was offering to those people who had difficulty getting financing for the assessments. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She expressed her appreciation for the time people took to come and testify. She said while she did not know how much they would agree or disagree, she appreciated Mr. Siekel-Zdzienicki and Ms. Hutson’s input and their concern for their community. She related that the former Police Auditor had provided information to her regarding the taser cams. She hoped the City would consider purchasing them. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for coming and providing testimony. She recalled that she had been saying that the street assessment policy was not fair for years. She opined that if the City “did it to everyone at once, there would be a revolution.” She believed that the loans from the City should be no- interest. She supported allowing people to wait to pay when the property changed hands and assessing people in the cul de sacs. Councilor Clark echoed appreciation for the people who spoke before the council. He agreed that in the best world there would be a great chain of evidence in both video and audio in those cases where a taser was deployed. He noted that he and the other Police Commissioners had spoken of this. He said the challenge of putting the cam on the taser was that it was only activated when the taser was pointed at the person; the lead-up to that point was missed, which sometimes provided some pretty important information. He agreed that having a better video record would be an improvement, but thought they needed to find a different way of capturing it. He hoped the Police Chief, and staff ,were working on ways that could be done. Councilor Clark asked Mr. Schoening to remind him of the number of miles of improved roads versus unimproved roads there were in Eugene. He noted that he had voted ‘no’ on the Elmira Road project. Mr. Schoening responded that Eugene had approximately 500 miles of roads, 50 of which were unimproved. Councilor Clark surmised that 10 percent of the roads were subject to the assessment model, if the neighbors decided to improve them, but 450 miles of the roads had already been paid for by the homeowners. Mr. Schoening affirmed that the homeowners had either paid through assessments or in the purchase price of their homes. Councilor Clark said he would love to hear from the residents what would be fair to the people who had already paid the higher price of their home to live on an improved street. He also wondered if any studies had been conducted on whether home values had changed on an improved road. Mr. Schoening responded that such a study had not been conducted. Councilor Clark said he would also favor paying for the assessments upon the sale of a property, but this would mean the City would have to establish a fund to find the money in order to do so. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - April 8, 2009, Work Session - April 8, 2009, Executive Session - April 13, 2009, Work Session - April 15, 2009, Work Session - April 20, 2009, Public Hearing B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Appointment of Lane Workforce Partnership Board D. Approval of Community Development Block Grant Recovery Funds Allocation E. Adoption of Resolution 4978 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for th Residential Property Located at 362 East 12 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Midtown Terrace LLC, Applicant) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting F. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of April 15, 2009, April 22, 2009, and April 29, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilor Zelenka pulled Items D and E. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of Items D and E passed unanimously, 7:0. (Councilor Solomon had temporarily left the dais.) Councilor Zelenka explained that he had pulled Item D not because he was opposed to it, but because he liked the fund allocation and wanted someone to talk about it. Grants Manager for the Community Development Division Stephanie Jennings explained that Item D was a special allocation from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that had been created through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). She said the City of Eugene was eligible to receive a formula allocation of $371,021 of the stimulus money to carry out CDBG activities with an emphasis on job creation and other things meant to address the immediate economic recovery needs. Counselor Solomon returned to the dais. Ms. Jennings said the first of two programmatic pieces that staff was proposing was the Business Development Fund, a fund used to support a variety of community businesses that had resulted in the creation of over 1,000 jobs to date. She related that the other piece was funding for foreclosure prevention counseling, provided by a local agency for people who earned 80 percent of the area median income and below. Mayor Piercy remarked that they could not ask for better things to be able to do. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item D, approval of the Community Development Block Grant Recovery Funds allocation, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka explained that he had pulled Item E because of his long-standing objection to utilizing the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) in the West University Neighborhood. He believed that the money would be spent on housing regardless of whether the developer was granted a MUPTE or not. He supported the MUPTE boundary expansion in the downtown area and the Trainsong area. He averred that development in the WUN was “going gangbusters.” Councilor Taylor also opposed the MUPTE. She also disapproved of placing a MUPTE in the Consent Calendar. She considered the item to be controversial and the Consent Calendar to be for routine items. Mayor Piercy read from page 82 in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), which explained the difference between a market product and the product that could be offered for a MUPTE application, which exceeded the code requirements in several areas as a result of the tax exemption. She noted that the project would include one handicapped-accessible unit and that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had indicated that it would meet the Silver Earth Advantage energy conservation benchmarks, among other things. She felt the project was moving in a direction that the City wanted to go and the development would be a better product for the neighborhood that fit with community goals. She averred that this was why the neighbors supported it. Councilor Brown asserted that the “whole situation” had arisen from the University of Oregon’s “unwillingness” to house students. He agreed that it was a “wonderful project,” but he was not sure that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting use of a MUPTE was the way to go. He felt that if the MUPTE were used, it should be available to all areas of the city. Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division Richie Weinman noted that the program was governed by state law. He said the program was available only in the core area or along transit-oriented areas. He stated that the boundaries were chosen by the council, which had debated the issue at great length numerous times. He did not believe the entire town could qualify for the MUPTE under state law. Councilor Brown commented that “oddly enough” he was going to support it. He believed it was a good project and that there had been a lot of inappropriate developments without the MUPTE in the WUN. He looked forward to seeing the Infill Compatibility Standards. He felt the conclusions and recommendations would help to solve a lot of problems. He supported maintaining the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) where it was for as long as possible. He believed that projects such as the one before the council helped to do this. While he still opposed the MUPTE in general, the approval of the WUN had contributed to his decision to support this particular project. Councilor Clark respectfully disagreed with Councilor Brown’s assertion that it was the University’s responsibility to provide students with housing. He looked at the students of the University as members of the broader community, rather than as members of the University community. He believed that the City benefited from having the student population as members of the larger community. He indicated he would support the MUPTE as a matter of principle. He declared that this was not a matter of simple affordability and whether or not it was affordable or profitable to build housing in that area or in another area, it was about what kind of housing would be built. He underscored that they had spent a lot of time discussing impacts on neighborhoods and what kind of housing should be built. He averred that they wanted to build “very nice stuff” that had a low impact on existing neighborhoods. He observed that the City had a lot of requirements for people who would build or rebuild homes in existing neighborhoods. He believed that this helped to make Eugene a better city and the MUPTE was a good tool toward that end. Councilor Taylor reiterated her feeling that if everyone who had a good project received a tax exemption, there would not be money with which to run the City. She declared that the City ran on taxes and that everyone should pay taxes. Councilor Solomon thanked staff for providing Attachment G in the AIS, which detailed the tax exemption. She explained that during the ten years the project would be exempt from taxes only on the value of the building (the value of the land would still be on the tax roll), the foregone taxes would come to $34,530. th She stressed that in the 11 year, after the MUPTE had expired, the taxes on the development were projected to be $40,000. She considered the project to be a “net gain on all fronts.” Mayor Piercy believed the project could only be built at the level of quality that was proposed with the exemption. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Taylor voting in opposition. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-unanimous Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions on Legislative Policy from May 20, 2009 Councilor Zelenka stated that the only bill before the council was House Bill (HB) 3485, which would establish a tax credit for transportation of woody biomass from forest management operations to biofuel producers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on House Bill 3485. Intergovernmental Affairs Manager, Brenda Wilson, stated that the bill was currently stalled in the House Revenue Committee. She explained that although the Dead Bill Deadline was on May 29, because this bill was in the Revenue Committee, it could still move. Councilor Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Wilson that the bill was an attachment to an existing bill that would provide tax credits for various products and waste streams for biofuels. Ms. Wilson noted that this was one of the tax credits the bill would create. She said it would also create a tax credit for the purchase of equipment to collect the waste materials, for recycling waste materials into other useful products, and for energy generation from woody biomass. She added that the bill would also require the Oregon Department of Energy to study biofuel facilities and to report back to the next legislature. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson confirmed that the tax credit for waste material would help to divert such materials from the landfill. She explained that one example used in the last hearing was that if a person was going to raze a house, the materials could be converted into biomass and the person could receive a tax credit for it with this bill. Councilor Zelenka understood that biomass was considered a renewable fuel under the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). He said the standard for consideration to be renewable was that it had to be carbon neutral. He indicated he would support the motion. Councilor Taylor asked if the bill had been supported by the Seneca Sawmill. Ms. Wilson replied that Seneca did not testify on this bill. Councilor Taylor declared that wood left to rot nourished growth. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on HB 3485 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 May 20, 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. 4. ACTION: Resolution 4977 Adopting an Amendment to the Systems Development Charges Administrative Fee and Amending Resolution No. 4900 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4977 adopting an amendment to the Systems Development Charges Administrative Fee and amending Resolution No. 4900. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the Resolution to change the effective date from July 1, 2009, to January, 2010. Councilor Clark said he would hate to see the City raising any kind of Systems Development Charge (SDC) related costs in this economic time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mr. Schoening said the increase had been postponed several months already. He explained that the Public Works Department had already reduced staff by two Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions in the fund. He thought it could survive by buying down more of the construction permit reserve. He underscored that the service would not go away because it was required for the building permit activity that the City had. He reiterated that the impact would be to other funds, should the current SDC administrative charge remain the same. Councilor Brown asked what the rationale was for capping the four percent increase at $30,000. Mr. Schoening replied that the intent was that at that rate, the capped amount more than covered the cost of the service provided in larger more complex projects. He said they were trying to maintain a rate that coincided with the services provided. Councilor Brown asked for an example of a project that would be capped at $30,000. Mr. Schoening responded that if Autzen Stadium or the arena project had been built on green fields they probably would have paid SDCs that would have generated that kind of administrative fee. Councilor Brown thought the cap was somewhat arbitrary. He indicated he would not support it at that number. Councilor Zelenka asked Mr. Schoening how much the City would forego in revenue. Mr. Schoening replied that the revenue at the current level of activity would be approximately $90,000 in this fiscal year. This meant that deferring the increase would cause an impact of approximately $45,000. He said the permit center had very few funding sources, the other major source being the construction permit fund. He reiterated that the service would still be provided and the question was how to fund it. Councilor Zelenka surmised that other funds would be depleted to make up for deferring the increase in SDC administrative charges. Mr. Schoening replied that it would not deplete the funds, because there were some “vacancies” in the other funds. He cited, as an example, that there was a person working on the Wastewater Master Plan which meant that a position was vacant. Councilor Zelenka ascertained from Mr. Schoening that the four percent increase was equal to approximately $90,000 in this fiscal year. He asked what the impact would be on the work load. Mr. Schoening responded that he did not think it would affect the service or the work load; it would only affect the construction permit fund. Councilor Solomon noted that the council planned to discuss a local economic development plan at its work session scheduled for May 28. She felt that the increase to the fees was counter-productive to the goal of economic development. Councilor Clark said he was thinking of putting into place something other jurisdictions had done, which was to attach the fees at the closing of the deal when a development was sold. He did not want to actively discourage, through fees, any economic development. He understood that the projected amount of the fee increase was based on current permitting levels. He said this was based on the assumption that, no matter what the City did, the permit levels would remain the same. He wanted to find ways for permit numbers to increase and he believed that delaying the fee increase was a way to do so. He felt it would cost more to present more economic challenges to the potential development activity that could occur in the community. Councilor Pryor noted that the fee for a single-family residence was $280 and asked what percentage of the cost of the residence this was. Mr. Schoening clarified that the amount was not related to the cost of the house, it was related to the cost of the services. Councilor Pryor asked how many starts the current estimates were based on. Mr. Schoening was not sure of this number. He said the starts were both commercial and residential and he did not know what the split was. He indicated that he could get the information. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor said he was trying to get at the impact of a possible delay. He questioned how much $280 would really impact home sales and starts. He averred that in the current market a person could get $280 in “change orders on carpet.” He asked if Mr. Schoening could give a more specific idea of the impact on the department a delay to January would create. Mr. Schoening replied that a person coming to the permit center would not notice a difference, but between July, 2009, and January, 2010, a couple of funds would “take a little bit of a hit.” Councilor Pryor surmised that a delay would be “a pain but not a burden.” Councilor Poling asked when the SDC on a project was collected. Mr. Schoening replied that SDCs were due when the building permit was issued, but could be financed through the City and paid for over a ten- year period. Councilor Poling understood that Eugene was not doing what Springfield and some other cities were doing, which was to collect the SDCs when the final check-off happened and occupancy was about to occur. He wondered if it would be possible for the council to have a discussion about considering a shift to this practice. He appreciated Councilor Clark’s motion. He knew a number of builders for whom a $280 fee would be a big impact. He pointed out that the City was losing builders every day and loans were harder to get than before. He said it was a “tough” situation. Councilor Zelenka had deduced from the total of the estimated revenue that the fees would be generated by th 160 housing starts approximately. He observed that $280 was 1/10 of one percent of the cost of an average house. He was challenged to imagine that the fee increase would have a “giant impact” on the building industry. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Schoening’s candor in what impact delaying the fee would have on staff. Councilor Brown asked if it was rare for a project to reach the $30,000 cap. Mr. Schoening responded that it was rare and there were no projects of that magnitude currently “in the pipeline.” Councilor Pryor recognized that delaying the fee increase could be more symbolic rather than tangible in terms of benefit. He did not want something symbolic to hurt staff and this was why he had sought to determine whether staff would really be impacted very much by the delay. He said if they could send a message that the City supported reinvigorating the community, he could be supportive of it. He added that if staff had responded that it would create a big impact, then he would have been more inclined to oppose the amendment. He thought this could send a positive signal to the community that the council wanted to try to do what it could to help. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the conversation and for the spirit of being sensitive to the challenges being faced by the community at present. She supported the amendment but did not want to give the impression that they were any less supportive of SDCs; the council still had a commitment to having private development pay its own way as much as possible. Roll call vote; the motion to amend the resolution passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the motion passed, as amended, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 8:52 p.m. 5. ACTION: MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting Beam Development Extension Request Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to direct the Agency Director to 1) amend the Purchase and Sale Agreement to extend the required start of construction date by six months to December 1, 2009; 2) negotiate with Beam to provide flexibility in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, if possible, regarding the City’s commitment for leased space, and if negotiations are successful to amend the Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding leased space without approval from the Urban Renewal Agency, and 3) continue discussions with Beam and Lane Community College regarding the possibility of locating a new Lane Community College Downtown Center on the Beam property. Mayor Piercy said the City had been trying to get the project going and the City and the developer had worked hard to move forward with filling one hole and renovating the adjacent building. She stressed that the financial underpinnings were difficult for everyone at present. Senior Development Analyst for the Community Development Division Denny Braud said the problems the project faced were two-fold. He stated that, primarily, the economy was presenting problems for project financing. He noted that the City of Portland currently had about 40 urban renewal projects that were on hold because of it. He related that Beam Development was facing the same challenges as many developers in trying to attract financing, tenants, and investors. He said the delay would provide the opportunity for Beam to extend the project and to “hopefully make some headway” on it. He noted that the other advantage of providing some additional time had to do with the emerging interest of Lane Community College (LCC) to locate there. He shared staff’s belief that having LCC at that location would make the building a landmark for many years. He averred that the additional six months would give Beam Development, the City, and LCC an opportunity to forge a partnership. Mayor Piercy stated that she was a big supporter of LCC. She understood that the college had to wait until it heard from the Legislature regarding funding in order to see the potential of this partnership. She believed that it would be a “great thing” to do. Councilor Poling indicated that he would support the motion. He recalled that when the original discussion had occurred, some councilors had averred that Beam had the ability to move in and start the project “tomorrow.” He said it was obvious how bad the current economy was when a company that could have supposedly come in and started the next day was coming back and asking for an extension. He pointed out that Beam Development had made all of the payments required of it. He liked the idea of LCC moving into that building. He noted that the council had granted KWG Development Partners an extension and he felt it would be fair and consistent to do the same for Beam Development. He added that he did now know if the City could support another extension. He did not want to experience another situation like the one the City had faced with the Oregon Research Institute. Councilor Clark recalled that he had been concerned about the City guaranteeing the space as a renter. He averred that this situation was different, one that he could support. He believed locating the LCC downtown center in the building would be a “fantastic idea.” Councilor Taylor commented that she had been disappointed to hear about the situation from the newspaper. She thought having LCC locate in the building would be “great.” She had some concern that the amount of money would not be enough, averring that “$9 million is nothing.” In response to a question from Councilor Taylor, Mr. Braud clarified that the City wanted to have a little bit of flexibility in order to reduce its commitment from the original 50,000 square-foot amount. He said it was a good time to rethink this commitment now that the PSA was open and the City was renegotiating. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor asked how much space the City was currently renting in the downtown area. City Manager Jon Ruiz replied that he did not know, but he would find out from Facility Division Manager Mike Penwell, He added that he was not certain space taken in the Beam project would come from currently leased space. Councilor Taylor asked if the City was delaying the project by negotiating with LCC. Mr. Braud assured her that the City was not. He explained that Beam Development had to attract a high percentage of pre- lease commitments in order to start, which was challenging in the present economy. He said lenders would require 80 to 100 percent building occupancy before financing the project, a big change from the previous year. Mr. Ruiz thought if the City could “work a deal” with LCC, it could accelerate the process. Councilor Taylor asked if staff was confident that LCC could raise the money. Mr. Braud replied that this was something LCC had to make progress on. He said the college still had some work to do and needed to accelerate the project in order to attract funding sources, such as stimulus money which was contingent on being shovel ready. Councilor Zelenka understood the current economic influences on the project. He liked the idea of having LCC downtown. He said Beam Development had been looking all over town for tenants. He felt that the project could jumpstart the downtown area. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to staff for its “hard and inventive work” to keep the project moving forward. She also appreciated Beam Development’s commitment to the community. She stressed that the situation was not one of someone “dragging their feet.” She also wanted to convey her appreciation to LCC for taking an interest in the project. She hoped the economy would improve soon, and underscored that the lack of development was not due to a lack of interest. Councilor Solomon asked if LCC wanted to take over the entire development. Mr. Braud replied that LCC was looking for 80,000 square feet and the Centre Court Building was not that large. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Braud stated that ownership was critical to LCC because of bond funding requirements. Councilor Solomon asked if it “all fell apart” would the City lose money. Mr. Braud responded that the City would not lose money, but Beam had a financial stake in it because of carrying costs. He said the City was able to service its Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan with Beam’s payments. Councilor Solomon echoed the Mayor’s compliments to staff. She observed that the situation was extraordinarily complicated and frustrating. She believed that if the City stuck with it, the project would come to fruition. Councilor Brown indicated he would support the extension. Councilor Poling clarified for the public that the item did not come to the council as a surprise in the newspaper. The information was on the council packet delivered on May 22 and the council had prior knowledge of it before it hit the press. Councilor Zelenka referred to the letter from Beam Development, on page 143 of the Agenda Packet. He pointed to the fourth bullet point and said he interpreted it as indicating that the City could have to pay some financing charges on the property if the project did not get going within six months. Mr. Braud agreed with that interpretation. He said if Beam spent the next six months trying to court LCC to the site and then LCC MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 11 Regular Meeting could not attract all of the funding, the project would then have to start all over. He believed that the fourth bullet point was there in recognition of this possibility. Councilor Zelenka commented that all of it depended on what happened with the economy. Mayor Piercy remained hopeful that the “moments of opportunity for funding” would help the project launch. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 26, 2009 Page 12 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 8, 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. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Judith Van , 89326 Old Coburg Road, noted that she had spoken to the council on a prior occasion on the issue regarding the Local Improvement District (LID) on Chad Drive/Old Coburg Road. She declared that the City could not afford it and neither could she. She also did not want the improvements and did not believe it would benefit her. She opined that it would not provide the City with $2 million in benefits. She said she would be losing her trees and most of her frontage. She averred that because it was a detriment to her property, she should not be assessed the amount the City intended to assess her. She did not want to pay for improvements that would not help her property. She said she had done everything but beg. She related that she could not afford to pay $13,000 and she considered the interest the City would charge to be unjust. She indicated her willingness to pay for the sewer line, however. She felt that the street assessment policy was not an appropriate way for the City to conduct itself. Teri Reifer , 695 Crest Drive, asked the council to delay the Crest Drive project until after the City Council reconsidered the assessment policy. She noted that the last code change had taken two years, but she did not think another code change should take that long. She had heard a lot of the councilors indicate that a remonstrance would give them pause. She understood that the bids had come in lower for the project because of the economy, but said it was important to remember that the economy was hurting the residents, too. Kim Heddinger , 763 Crest Drive, Ward 2, shared her comments regarding the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street project. She averred that the streets had not been maintained “at all” since they had been annexed into the City. She objected to assessing only a small number of residents with street frontage for the project. She found it “ironic” that the road was smooth once it was out of city limits. She felt that the problem was that the City “never bothered” to maintain the road. She opined that the Eugene City Code was so complicated that citizens would need “a degree from Harvard” to understand it. She considered the input from the City engineer to be “double-speak.” She believed the assessment should be one price for all. She was disheartened that the street classification had been changed from a collector because stimulus funds were available for collector streets. She suggested that a charge to the entire City would help the assessment to not be a “life changing” event. She also suggested that the City should resurface the street over its existing footprint and charge everyone in a specific ward or at least the people who could not access their residences without using the streets that were being assessed. She believed MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting that the neighbors in her area had been very articulate in their opposition to what she considered to be a “very unjust process.” Marion Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, urged the council to rethink the street assessment policy. She believed it would be best to postpone the street project in order to “revamp” the City statute. She acknowledged the work that had gone into the road design and understood that the people who worked on it did not want it to be for nothing. She agreed with that. She said if they were talking about hard work, they should also consider the hard work that the families who would be assessed for the road costs were doing to support their homes and families. She pointed out that these people were now being asked to produce an additional $10,000 to $20,000. She asked the council to consider whether 300 volunteer hours “for a few individuals” were more important than the “thousands of hours of additional payroll work for 100 families.” She opined that the timing was especially bad, given the current rate of unemployment locally. She asked the council to give consideration to the “families who were frightened to death” of the assessment. She asked the City to, at a minimum, “dig deep” and come up with more funding to help them. Bill Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, also spoke to the assessment issue. He averred that the council had been informed by testimony and a remonstrance signed by 86 citizens that the majority faced with the assessment felt it was unfair and unaffordable. He related some of the councilors’ comments regarding the assessment policy from the March 9 work session that indicated agreement that the assessments could be construed as unfair and unwieldy. He believed that the comments showed that even the councilors were uncomfortable with the assessment policy. He declared that the time seemed right to change “this wrong.” He underscored that road projects would “go on forever” and the council would face them again. He hoped the councilors’ statements would translate into a fair and affordable assessment policy. Steven Mayberry , 3439 Storey Boulevard, stated that he had bought his house approximately nine years earlier. He had emailed all of the councilors. He stressed that he and his wife were public school teachers with two children and an older relative living with them. He said they were taking out a second mortgage to pay for the street assessment, because paying for it would “devastate” them financially. He did not understand the idea that because 90 percent of the people in Eugene had already been assessed in this manner, it would be unfair to change the law to save the last 10 percent from the assessment. He believed that if citizens had to worry about fairness in that way, no laws would ever be changed. He agreed with Councilor Taylor that it was an unfair system. He asserted that the way street repairs were paid for would have to change. Marlene Varady , 420 Crest Drive, quoted William Shakespeare as having said “the people are the city.” She underscored the request of the people in the Crest Drive area for the council to consider all of their petitions. She appreciated that they had been able to come together to present to the council its petition for change. She acknowledged that they were asking the council to enact a big change. She believed it would be a large change for the future. She noted that she lived across from the Wayne Morse Family Farm and asked them to consider what Wayne Morse would have wanted. Toby Gamberoni , 691 Crest Drive, urged the council to delay the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street project. He encouraged the City to consider a citywide tax for future projects. He believed that the current assessment system was “possibly unfair and definitely outdated.” He related that he was being assessed $7,500 for 17.5 feet of access road, the minimum charge. He asserted that 71 to 85 percent of the people using the roads were not being asked to pay for it. He supported the institution of the garbage hauler fee and a commensurate change in how assessments were charged. Richard Wohlberg , 310 Crest Drive, encouraged the council not to build the road currently. He did not want to cut off all of the efforts that people had made to design the road. He hoped that just the delay MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting would go through. He noted the difficulty that people were experiencing in getting loans at present, which made it more difficult for people to come up with the money they were being assessed. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Taylor thought it would be a shame not to lower the road assessments. She believed the policy to be absolutely wrong. She understood that there was money the City could use to buy down the assessments. City Manager Jon Ruiz confirmed that this was true and asked Public Works Director Kurt Corey to respond more specifically. Mr. Corey explained that there had been funds set aside for these types of projects that had been part of the fund swap that the City had engaged in with the County in 2008. He believed that City Engineer Mark Schoening had suggested an alternative for using the balance, given the current lower bidding environment, to help write down some of the assessments. Councilor Taylor hoped it could make a difference. She also wondered if there was a way to ask the people who lived on the cul de sacs that could only access their residences via Crest Drive to voluntarily contribute to the project. She acknowledged that postponing the process could ultimately cost more. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She stated that she had received the email from Mr. Schoening regarding the alternative that Mr. Corey had referenced and she had requested language for buying down projects. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - April 29, 2009, Executive Session - May 18, 2009, Public Hearing B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of May 6, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 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 May 27, 2009 Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson reported that the “end [was] near.” She stated that there were two bills for council review. She explained that the first, Senate Bill (SB) 719A, would establish an Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area Revolving Loan Fund and would continuously appropriate moneys from the fund to the Economic and Community Development Department to provide no-interest loans to finance eligible infrastructure projects in urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion areas. She said the reason the bill had come back in another form was that there had been some concern on the part of some of the legislators that they were approaching the ceiling on lottery bonds. She related that the new version would allow the deposit of residual lottery funds left over from other debt service and bond sales. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Support position on SB719A. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor indicated she would oppose the bill. She believed it would encourage expansion of the UGB. Councilor Zelenka asked if the change would mean the money would come out of the General Fund. Ms. Wilson replied that it would only come out of the sale of lottery bonds. Councilor Zelenka observed that some lottery dollars were paying for General Fund services, such as schools. He asked if there would be less of this. Ms. Wilson clarified that $50 million would be deposited in the revolving fund and that money would come from the sale of bonds, with lottery money used for the debt service. She said if they could not make $50 million, it would be taken from residual lottery funds that already existed and not out of the General Fund. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson listed some of the things that lottery funds paid for, which included parks and some senior services. She added that because it was a revolving fund, once the $50 million was distributed, the fund would continue through the repayment of the funds. Mayor Piercy stated that the issue was that some communities were facing a required expansion of the UGB and it was expensive to put in the infrastructure in this case. Ms. Wilson confirmed that the fund would be available for communities to access if they either chose to or were forced to expand their UGBs. Councilor Clark asked if this would make the funds less secure. It sounded to him like the original version had a more dedicated stream of revenue. Ms. Wilson replied that there was a possibility that the revolving fund might not be totally funded. Councilor Zelenka wondered whether the services that would be paid for would be cut to meet the debt service if the bonds could not be paid for by the lottery funds. Ms. Wilson responded that this could be the case for any bond debt service that could not be paid. She said under this particular bill, people would be required to pay interest which would also help to pay off the debt service. Councilor Zelenka asserted that if they could not come up with the debt service then the programs that lottery funds paid for would be cut. Ms. Wilson replied that she could not say where the money would come from to pay the debt service on any bonds the state was not able to pay. Councilor Brown surmised that the money would go primarily to communities with a potential for UGB expansion such as Eugene, Salem/Keizer, and Portland. Ms. Wilson responded that there were several communities in the Portland area that were either currently or soon to be expanding their UGBs. Councilor Brown asked if the developers would receive the funds. Ms. Wilson responded that it was her understanding that the money would go to the communities so that the expansion could actually occur. Councilor Brown understood that communities would then use the money to pay for infrastructure. Ms. Wilson affirmed that it would pay for sewers or whatever was needed for development to occur. Councilor Poling surmised that the bill would provide no-interest loans and the money would be paid back when communities collected Systems Development Charges (SDCs) from the developers. Ms. Wilson indicated that this was correct. She noted, however, that there were several legislators in the Ways and Means Committee that did not like the idea of making the loans no-interest. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka asked if the cost had been estimated for the fund. Ms. Wilson replied that there was no discussion of cost. She noted that there was some concern expressed that one community could come in and take it all. Councilor Zelenka asked if there was a provision that would prohibit this. Ms. Wilson responded that it was not in the current version, but if the bill started to move it would have to include such a provision. Councilor Zelenka indicated he would oppose the motion. He did not believe it was the appropriate way to fund infrastructure and he did not like that there was no provision preventing one jurisdiction from taking it all. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Pryor, Poling, and Ortiz voting in favor. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the City had indicated that it had adopted a Priority 2 Support position on the former version of the bill. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position on SB719A. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Brown, Zelenka, Clark, and Solomon voting in favor and councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Poling, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of adopting a Priority 2 Oppose position on SB719A and the motion passed. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position on House Bill (HB) 2699A. Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would modify the definition of “public works” and would classify exemptions from ad valorem property taxation for the purpose of imposing prevailing wage requirements and extend the exemption to projects that were at least $5 million and were sited in Enterprise Zones. She underscored that prevailing wage was not the same as living wage. Councilor Zelenka noted that the bill had been sponsored by Eugene Representative Paul Holvey. He asked what the amendments to the bill had been. Ms. Wilson replied that the newest version had removed the requirement that the payment of prevailing wages be in connection with public works for which funds of a public agency were used including funds received in the form of tax credits. She said it also removed the provision that would exempt projects that were privately owned and that used private funds and instead clarified the exemption from ad valorem property tax. She listed some of the other stipulations in the bill. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson read the definitions of ‘public works’ from the language in Section 1(H)(6)(a) of HB2699A. Councilor Zelenka surmised that by removing the prevailing wage requirement, any public infrastructure program or project would not have to pay that wage. Ms. Wilson replied that it would apply as long as a project met the other requirement of being in an Enterprise Zone. Mr. Ruiz asked that the item be tabled so that Legal Counsel could caucus with Ms. Wilson. Councilor Clark asked Ms. Wilson to state the difference between prevailing wage and living wage. He also requested that she bring back the financial impact the bill could have. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Waste Administrative Powers and Amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the guidelines for testimony. th Evie Rosenberg , 2065 West 15 Way, related that she worked for Westmoreland Village. She stated that the fee would impact 400 families that lived there. She understood that there was a bill that had other taxes that would cover this. It did not seem fair to her to place the five percent fee on one service. Sam Miller , 2399 Highway 99, owner of Lane Apex Disposal, indicated his opposition to the garbage hauler surcharge. He believed that it was inequitable as it would not spread the burden to all residents; it would only target those who subscribed to a garbage service. He said it would also not account for other companies that operated heavy vehicles on city streets on a regular basis. He averred that many non-profit agencies and the school districts could not afford to pay more than they were already paying. He related that a survey conducted by the Oregon Refuse Recycling Association indicated that the only other jurisdiction in the state that charged a fee was Deschutes County and it was a tipping fee at $5 per ton. He noted that this equated to about 25cents per can. He stated that his company would pay over $50,000 in license fees in 2009 for the privilege of operating in the City of Eugene. He averred that if the fees did not cover the wear on the roads then he wanted to know what specific benefit they derived from paying such a large sum. He pointed out that no other company in Eugene was required to pay that size license fee and was then taxed on the revenue generated on top of it. He believed that if the council did proceed with the surcharge, it must be a pass through expense in the ordinance and in the administrative rules. He suggested that the surcharge be made a part of the consolidated rate for services. He was concerned that customers who opposed the fee would refuse to pay it, leaving the garbage haulers to pay it for them. Nishan Vanatta , 3435 Potter Street, opposed the fee. She asked the City to reconsider the additional tax on gasoline. She believed that a gas tax was the only fair way to pay for streets. She said the City might have to continue to work to get the gas tax over a period of years. Jared Mason-Gere , 1401 Willamette Street, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, conveyed the Chamber’s opposition to the fee. He averred that it was not the right time to “ding” businesses, non-profits, and schools. He asked the council to at least hold off on the decision until some other options were able to be explored and until the City had a better sense of what would come from the State Jobs and Transportation package. Jim Welsh , 90050 Killian Lane, Elmira, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Association of Realtors. He conveyed the association’s opposition. He declared that there was a better way and asked the council to delay the decision. He said the association was working with stakeholders on a different mechanism that had been working in other cities. He wanted to be able to propose it and work with the City. He added that it was a “tough time” to impose more fees or taxes. th Joe Rizzi , 1125 West 8 Avenue, Ward 1, indicated his support for the garbage tax. He believed that it was important to look at this as a funding source to fix the roads. He said if the City was going to promote businesses and safety, good infrastructure was needed. He felt the fee was a fair way to assess the taxes for the roads. He averred that the majority of the people wanted their roads to be maintained and taxing the heaviest user was the best way to accomplish this. Mark Callahan , 3621 Mahlon Avenue, Ward 4, stated that his trash bill every three months was about $110. He received a $4.50 credit for filling up a container with his recyclables. He did not want his credit to go for a tax on something. He had lived in Eugene for most of his life. He averred that Eugene had a MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting green economy and said if his credit for recycling was eaten up by a tax, he would have less motivation to recycle. Brian Bales , 88604 Oakhill Cemetery Road, co-owner of Royal Refuse Service, said it seemed that the garbage companies were the only companies the City could “get a handle on” to try to tax. He thought it was unfair. He estimated that the garbage companies combined contributed between $750,000 and $1 million to the City in license fees. He said if one took a dollar earned by the garbage haulers, about half of it went to “some government organization.” He believed that the fee would create a hardship on struggling companies and homes and predicted that there would be more illegal dumping. He predicted that it would be a nightmare. He said it would also create a nightmare for his bookkeeping. Scott Bales , 29480 Airport Road, co-owner of Royal Refuse Service, referred to some staff notes that indicated that the 2007 recommendation for a package of road funding solutions from the Council Committee on Transportation Funding noted that garbage service customers from all sectors would pay the fee regardless of whether they were private, public, or non-profit entities. He believed that the intention was to spread the impact of the surcharge across the community so that everyone would pay a little toward the funding of a well-maintained street system. He did not understand why the City was so “desperate” to start a new tax. He stated that 10 percent of the citizens would not contribute because they either “self-hauled” or used someone else’s dumpster. It seemed to him that in a democratic society everyone was supposed to contribute or vote. It made him wonder why there was not a 1.5 percent gas tax on the May ballot. He asserted that the City would rather “back door” a surcharge on garbage bills. He related that over half of the current garbage bill was due to Lane County user fees, which were set to increase by $2 per ton in August. He reiterated that another six percent of the fee was attributable to license fees from the City. He considered this to be “double taxation.” He averred that the bottom line was that this increase would affect agencies in need such as St. Vincent DePaul and public agencies such as the County Jail. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for councilors’ comments. Councilor Zelenka agreed “whole heartedly” that a gas tax would be better. He noted that one had just been voted down in Springfield and the transportation bill that had just been passed at the state level would prohibit the City from increasing its tax for five years. He asked Mr. Corey to review what the current funds and current deficit were for the street repairs. Mr. Corey stated that the backlog of deferred maintenance, work that should have been completed by now but had not been completed, was approximately $173 million based upon 2008 figures. He said the operations and maintenance, for which the garbage surcharge was earmarked, was short by $3 to $4 million on an ongoing basis. He related that the proposed surcharge would provide $900,000 annually for it. He reported that the funding that was currently in place was primarily derived from the State Highway Trust Fund, which was comprised mostly of the state gas tax together with user fees and other funding mechanisms. He said about $6.5 million annually was being provided by the bond measure for deferred maintenance and there were also some transportation SDCs. He added that the other major portion of the cost was contributed by the five-cent gas tax. Councilor Zelenka ascertained from Mr. Corey that there was still a $4 million deficit annually, of which $3 million would be coming from the transportation bill. Mr. Corey confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, that 10 percent of the population of Eugene did not have garbage service and the fee, if passed, would be a pass through. Councilor Zelenka requested that staff bring back a mechanism for a reasonable incremental administration cost. He believed it would be a minimal amount. He also asked staff to bring back language exempting MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting schools. In response to people who asked the council to wait, he said the City had been waiting already for “years and years.” He opined that the surcharge was one of the more equitable ideas the council committee had come up with. He supported it. Councilor Poling opposed the surcharge. He had voted against the surcharge each of the three times it had come before the council and Budget Committee. It did not make sense to him to exact this charge. He predicted that if the surcharge passed, there would be a referendum placed on the ballot to rescind it. He considered such a charge to be “an easy target.” He said there were many heavy trucks traveling on the city streets and it was not fair to single out garbage haulers. Councilor Clark commented that taxes were “the closest thing to eternal life.” He predicted that the surcharge would increase over time, if enacted, and would never go away. He indicated he would oppose the surcharge, adding that if it appeared it might pass, he would move to refer it to the voters. Councilor Solomon asked that any amendment to exempt schools include private schools of 200 or more students. She also wanted to amend the surcharge to ensure that it would remain at five percent. Legal Counsel Kathryn Brotherton stated that exempting schools, private or public, would be difficult to execute because the tax would be on the garbage haulers and how they passed it through would be up to them. She said they would not be able to carve out certain payers. Councilor Solomon asked if it could be capped. Ms. Brotherton replied that the fee would be delegated to the City Manager, as it was currently written. She said the councilors could add codified language to do so. Mayor Piercy understood that the council could not create any language that would prohibit future councils from making a different decision. Councilor Zelenka asked if it would be possible to give the schools a rebate. Ms. Brotherton responded that they could not for the same reasons they could not exempt the schools. She said it might be possible to subsidize something else that the schools paid to the City. She added that the garbage haulers could choose not to assess the schools. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Brotherton stated that the rate of return for garbage haulers was approximately 11 percent. Mr. Corey said the ordinance was structured so that the haulers would be made whole. He stated that what staff had shown in the agenda materials was that exemptions from the charge would not work as well as the council, by policy, determining that there were one or more groups that it wanted to hold harmless. He explained that the council would not do this through the ordinance itself; it would have to come from a subsequent policy discussion. Councilor Ortiz said if the surcharge passed and was not referred to the voters, she would want the City to make some kind of agreement with School District 4J and the Bethel School District to mitigate the cost. Councilor Clark understood that the original intent from the transportation committee was to spread the cost over everyone equally. He asked them to consider what had changed. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations in the Downtown Plan Area and Notice for Land Use Applications; Amending Sections 9.2171, 9.2173, 9.2175, 9.3405, 9.3410, 9.4085, 9.4290, 9.4530, 9.5500, 9.7210, 9.7220, 9.7315, 9.7335, 9.7415, 9.7440, 9.7445, 9.7520, 9.7545, 9.7560, MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting 9.7615, 9.7635, 9.7665, 9.7685, and 9.8030 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Section 9.8007 to that Code Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5001, an ordinance concerning land use regulations in the Downtown Plan Area. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Brown voting in opposition. 6. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution 4979 Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Constructing Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Landscape Medians, Street Lights, Traffic Signal, Street Trees, Wastewater, and Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Facilities on Chad Drive and Old Coburg Road from the East End of Chad Drive to North Game Farm Road (Job #3923) Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Hearings Official’s Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations of May 29, 2009. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Solomon voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4979 forming a Local Improvement District for paving, constructing curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscape medians, street lights, traffic signals, street trees, wastewater, and stormwater drainage and water quality facilities on Chad Drive and Old Coburg Road from the east end of Chad Drive to North Game Farm Road (“Chad Drive Extension Project” Job # 3923.) Councilor Solomon recalled that when the council had last discussed the item, Councilor Ortiz had made a motion to continue to discuss the assessment process. She asked if this was on the council’s agenda. Mr. Schoening replied that it was his understanding that the City would undertake the three projects scheduled for the summer because a change to the assessment policy would not be able to be enacted in time to affect them. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Solomon, and Clark voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to take the motion on House Bill 2966A back off the table. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Wilson stated that prevailing wage was a complex policy issue. She recalled that she had recommended the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) not take a position on the prevailing wage bills because the City Council had not had an opportunity to have a full discussion on prevailing wage and its impact on different projects such as low-income housing projects and Enterprise Zone projects. She said the City had not taken a position on approximately a dozen bills that had been presented in the State Legislature because they had to do with prevailing wage. In response to Councilor Clark’s specific question, she explained that minimum wage was the lowest wage set by the federal government, with some states adopting their own minimum wage laws. She said living wage was the minimum amount that could be paid to a worker so that a worker had the ability to provide housing, transportation, and food and this amount varied from community to community and from state to state. She stated that prevailing wage was not living wage; it was the amount of pay and benefits that had to be paid to workers on particular projects. She explained that the Commissioner for the Board of Labor and Industries (BOLI) set the prevailing wage in the State of Oregon. She clarified that HB2966A would add a category of projects to the list of projects that were already required to pay prevailing wage and the categories added would include private projects that were $5 million or more that were situated in Enterprise Zones where the business entity had received a tax credit. She said staff had recommended that the City oppose the bills because it would have an increased MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting cost to the City. She explained that the City would be required to pay a $5,000 fee for every project that met the definition of public works. She related that the opponents of the bill included local governments across the state and, in some cases, some unions whose position was that the bill would create a disincentive to economic and community development in Enterprise Zones across the state. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to substitute a motion to take no position on HB2966A. Councilor Clark indicated that he would prefer to oppose the bill. He understood that the difference between a living wage and prevailing wage locally was as much as $10 to $12 an hour and $40 an hour for work respectively. Ms. Wilson confirmed that this was true. She said prevailing wage could not be quantified in a specific amount because it varied in industry and types of projects and in the State of Oregon it varied from county to county. Councilor Clark surmised that the bill was essentially eliminating the incentive to increase economic activity in areas where an Enterprise Zone had been created to increase economic activity. He believed it would create a disincentive. Councilor Poling referred to comments made by Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division, Larry Hill, on page 86 of the agenda packet. Mr. Hill had stated that the bill would probably discourage private investment by increasing both cost and administrative burden on the private investor and would weaken the City’s ability to use an Enterprise Zone as an incentive to attract and focus private investment dollars to the area of the zone. He related that Mr. Hill also pointed to the increased cost to the City because of the greater administrative burden. He believed that if the bill passed, it would cost the City extra money and would defeat the purpose of the Enterprise Zone. Councilor Taylor preferred to support the bill, but she did not think it would pass. She indicated she would support taking no position. Councilor Zelenka said he would also be inclined to support the bill, but would settle for taking no position. Councilor Pryor preferred taking no position in the face of having a divided council. He wanted to be silent on an issue rather than to convey a position as from the City Council based on a split vote. He indicated that if the vote failed, he would support opposing HB2966A. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Brown, Zelenka, Taylor, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Clark, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted to take no position and the motion passed. Mayor Piercy thought it was a good to take no position on the bill. She added that she considered the position to be from the council, even with a 5 to 4 vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 11 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 10, 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 12:03 p.m. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Relations com- mittee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the May 27, 2009, IGR Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those IGR meetings. Ms. Piercy, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, noted that Mr. Zelenka’s motion addressed all of the outstanding IGR issues from the council’s most recent meeting on the matter. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. th WORK SESSION – Update on Sale and Development of 10 and Charnelton Site A. Mr. Clark stated that while the City Attorney’s office had advised him that he and his private business had no apparent conflicts of interest regarding any developers involved in the discussions surrounding the sale and th development of the 10 and Charnelton site, he was recusing himself from the current work session discussion and subsequent vote regarding the matter. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (EURA) at 12:06 p.m. th Senior Planner Nan Laurence provided an update on the 10 and Charnelton development project and noted that W & G Development (WG) was currently requesting a certain amount of scheduling flexibility as well as the authority to lease some of the developed office space to the City of Eugene. Ms. Laurence directed the council member to copies of WG representative Nathan Phillip’s June 2, 200, letter to City Manager Jon Ruiz and noted that Pacific University was currently unable to move forward with any plans to occupy th space at the 10 and Development site and that no replacement anchor tenant had been as yet identified. Ms. Laurence briefly outlined the proposed amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with WG as described in the agenda item summary materials. Ms. Laurence noted that with respect to the two-phase development strategy described in the proposed PSA amendments, WG intended to build a project substantially similar to their previously approved plans for the site with MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 1 Work Session four floors of housing over one floor of office space. Ms. Laurence noted that the City Manager’s recommendation was to direct the EURA director to amend the PSA in accordance with WG’s requests. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, noted that the intent of his recommendation was to provide the development flexibility necessary to facilitate the improvement of the downtown area and also to help facilitate the execution of the Beam development project. He further noted that the proposed PSA amendments did not commit the City to a lease agreement with WG but rather called for the negotiation of terms regarding the potential lease of 15,000 square feet of office space in the west quarter-block of the development site. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, commented that Lane Community College’s (LCC) own lease plans for the Beam development project would be made known sometime within the next 60 days. Ms. Taylor asked how much downtown office space was currently leased by the City. Ms. Laurence did not have exact figures with which to respond to Ms. Taylor’s question. Mr. Ruiz noted that staff would research the question and get back to Ms. Taylor with further information. Ms. Laurence stated that in addition to leasing office space for its own use, the City periodically leased office space out to commercial tenants. She noted that she would provide Ms. Taylor with information regarding both applica- tions of downtown office space. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the City had committed to leasing up to 50,000 square feet of office space at the Beam development site. Ms. Taylor hoped that any actions taken regarding the WG development would not jeopardize the Beam Develop- ment project and felt that, in light of LCC’s uncertain plans regarding that development, the City should postpone th further action regarding the 10 and Charnelton site. th Ms. Taylor noted that she would support a motion to sell half of the 10 and Charnelton development site, particular- ly if such a sale would encourage the development of a public park on the remainder of the site. She felt that any revisions to the lease provisions previously agreed upon would be inadvisable and further stated that any earnest monies paid on the project to date should not be split. Mr. Ruiz, responding to Ms. Taylor’s comments, noted that the City might not need to utilize its full commitment of 50,000 square feet of office space for the Beam development project should LCC move forward with its plans to also lease space at that site. Mr. Ruiz noted that the recommended options regarding the WG PSA were not considered to be detrimental to the Beam development project. Ms. Taylor noted that she would not support the staff recommendations regarding the WG PSA if they resulted in th any relocation of City Hall offices to the 10 and Charnelton location. Mr. Ruiz responded that no City Hall offices would be moved until the council had made decisions toward the end of July regarding the use of its owned and leased properties. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, noted that he would be comfortable with returning to the council at a later time for their final decisions regarding the potential WG PSA amendments. Ms. Solomon felt that the timing of the WG requests regarding the PSA was unfortunate as the City still did not know the intentions of LCC in relation to the Beam development project. She worried that the City might find itself MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 2 Work Session committed to the use of the full 50,000 square feet on that project in addition to the use of another 15,000 square feet th at the 10 and Charnelton location. Ms. Solomon maintained that the lease considerations of the Beam and WG development projects ran contrary to the City’s goal of consolidation of its services. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, stated that in accordance with the proposed PSA th amendments, WG would be committed to begin construction on the west quarter-block of the 10 and Charnelton site by the end of May 2010. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, understood that WG hoped to move forward with the development of the west quarter-block as the first phase of their development in the hopes that the successful development of that section of the property would facilitate the continued development of the east quarter-block of the property as the second phase. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that WG had paid $50,000 in earnest money th regarding the development of 10 and Charnelton which would be split into two equal parts should the development proceed in two phases as requested by WG. Mr. Brown indicated he found the phased approach to the WG development project acceptable. Ms. Laurence, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, noted that the current plans for the WG development project called for a mixed-use facility with one floor of commercial space below four floors of residential housing. Mr. Zelenka found the WG requests acceptable and believed that current economic conditions were likely to improve over the coming year. Mr. Zelenka averred that approving WG’s phased development approach and subsequently delaying the development th of the east quarter-block of the 10 and Charnelton site might give the City the flexibility to potentially develop a civic campus as had often been discussed. Ms. Laurence responded to Mr. Zelenka’s comment and noted that under their phased approach WG would develop th the east quarter-block of the 10and Charnelton site if they chose to purchase the property with the intent of doing so no later than September 30, 2010. She further noted that the City had not specifically negotiated any options to withdraw from the PSA with WG. Mr. Zelenka stated that he found splitting the earnest money to be acceptable to him. Ms. Ortiz supported the City Manager’s recommendation but worried that the WG development project might not ultimately proceed. Mr. Brown shared Ms. Ortiz’s concerns and further warned that there might be further revisions and purchasing delays regarding the WG development project. He suggested that it might ultimately be advisable to open up the east th quarter-block of the 10 and Charnelton site to other development interests. th Mr. Poling was uncomfortable with the idea of opening the development of the east quarter-block of the 10 and Charnelton site or repurposing that portion of the site for a civic campus. He commented that he shared Ms. Ortiz’s concerns regarding the WG development project but felt that the improving economic conditions and the expertise of WG warranted approval of the amendments to their PSA. th Ms. Solomon felt it would not be fair for the City to open up the development of the east quarter-block of the 10 and MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Charnelton site to other developments while WG was still under contract to the City for the development of the site. Mr. Pryor shared concerns that the WG project might be delayed or ultimately cancelled but noted that he was willing to give WG the benefit of the doubt. Ms. Taylor expressed that negative experiences with development projects involving ORI had ultimately been the result of the former City Manager’s ineffectiveness. Ms. Taylor asked if WG might eventually construct only the first phase of the development project with the west quarter-block of the 10th and Charnelton site. Ms. Laurence responded that WG was committed to the development of both phases of the project contingent upon the City's commitment to lease 15,000 square feet of office space. Ms. Laurence further noted that the terms of the PSA required WG to have an anchor tenant committed in order to proceed with the development of the first phase of the project. Planning and Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan believed that it was WG's intention to ultimately purchase and develop both halves of the development site. Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir agreed with Mr. Sullivan's assessment and further expressed that WG had made no indication that they wished to develop a smaller portion of the site. Ms. Piercy hoped that any revisions to the WG PSA would facilitate the City's ultimate goal of fully re-invigorating the downtown area. Ms. Piercy pointed out that no other development groups were "beating our doors down" with respect to development of either the east or west portions of the 10th and Charnelton development site and felt that the City should work as hard as possible to encourage the development of a fiscally sound project such as had been initiated by WG. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the Agency Director to amend the PSA consistent with the updated terms included in Attachment A: Update of Key Terms to allow WG to purchase only the west quarter-block of the 10th and Charnelton development site by September 30, 2009. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Piercy asked if it might be advisable to adjust the second part of the recommended motion to direct staff to return to the council with further information. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the Agency Director to amend the PSA consistent with the updated terms included in Attachment A: Update of Key Terms to negotiate an option for WG to purchase the east quarter-block and the alley by September 30, 2010, and to return to the council for final approval regarding the same. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the Agency Director to amend the PSA consistent with the updated terms included in Attachment A: Update of Key Terms to negotiate terms for the City to lease up to 15,000 square feet of office space in the west quarter-block development and to return to the council for final approval regarding the same. The motion passed, 4:3 (Ms. Solomon, Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi- tion). B. WORK SESSION - An Ordinance Concerning Solid Waste Administrative Powers and Amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code 1971 Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided background on a variety of issues surrounding the solid waste surcharge MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 4 Work Session and described in detail how the surcharge would generate approximately $900,000 in revenue which would be directed toward the repair, maintenance and preservation of local roadways. Mr. Corey said that the solid waste collection surcharge was one of five strategies recommended to the council and was based on the assumption that the surcharge could not only be implemented relatively quickly but also on the assumption that solid waste collectors represented a unique and significant class of users of the City’s roads. He noted that solid waste vehicles routinely weighed in excess of 30,000 pounds and used virtually every square inch of every City street and alley. Mr. Corey reported that a public hearing to discuss the solid waste collection surcharge had been held on June 8, 2009. Mr. Corey provided a brief summary of the responses to the commonly asked questions raised during that hearing included as Attachment A in the agenda item summary materials. Mr. Corey noted with respect to the public and the council’s concern regarding the potential impact of the solid waste collection surcharge on public school districts in Eugene that the council might consider a motion to explore exemptions to the surcharge which might reduce or eliminate the impact of the surcharge on those school districts. Mr. Corey responded to previous concerns regarding potential rate increases on the surcharge and noted that any such increases were generally the responsibility of the City Manager. Mr. Corey responded to previous concerns regarding administrative burdens placed on solid waste haulers by the surcharge and noted that there appeared to be no reason to believe that the surcharge could not simply be incorpo- rated into the existing administrative structure. Mr. Clark noted that the overall problems addressed by the surcharge would be the significant backlog of deferred roadway maintenance and the ongoing transportation operations/maintenance funding issues. Mr. Clark further commented that the implementation of a new tax such as the surcharge might currently be difficult for citizens to accommodate and that the surcharge might have the unintended consequence of prompting customers to reduce the amount of their garbage which might ultimately lead the collectors to increase their rates in order to guarantee their profits. He believed that the surcharge was “too heavy a solution to this actual problem.” Mr. Clark hoped that the City might continue to explore other funding opportunities such as state funding assistance and the sale of the City’s surplus real property in order to address the roadway maintenance issues faced by the City. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Clark that consumers might attempt to reduce or cancel their garbage collection service as a result of the surcharge and suggested that any funds for roadway improvements come out of the City’s general fund. Ms. Taylor suggested that a City vehicle registration fee would be a much more fair system of generating revenue. Mr. Brown asked what other funding remedies had been explored to address roadway maintenance and other local transportation system issue and further asked how an increase in the state gas tax might be utilized to address local roadway problems. Mr. Corey noted that successful implementation of the provisions of House Bill 2001 might generate as much as $3 million but that any portion of those funds would not be available until late in FY2011. Mr. Corey proceeded to describe several other funding mechanisms associated with HB 2001 that might be used to generate funds for local roadway improvements. Mr. Brown suggested that the City might utilize funds from its facility reserves to cover the operations and maintenance needs for local roadways until state gas tax funds generated by HB 2001 were available. Mr. Corey responded that full implementation of HB 2001 would still not generate enough revenue to cover the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 5 Work Session operations and maintenance funding gaps currently faced by the City. Mr. Pryor thanked the staff for their information and the diligence of their research regarding the matter. He disagreed that people might try to find ways to illegally dump their garbage or find other ways to circumvent local garbage service practices as a result of the surcharge but felt that the cost of the surcharge was unfortunately still going to be passed down to average consumers. He suggested that a City transportation utility might be a more equitable way to generate revenue for the City. Ms. Ortiz was frustrated that many of the same concerns from previous council and budget committee meetings were being raised regarding the solid waste collection surcharge with little advancement. She hoped that a motion on the matter might finally be put forth. Mr. Zelenka noted that local garbage haulers had recently increased their fees in order to cover their own increased costs by double the amount being suggested by the City and had seen absolutely no decrease in the amount of people using the service. He also noted that a recent editorial in the Register-Guard had reflected that many funding sources that used to go towards repairing and maintaining local roadways had been taken away and not replaced. He felt that the solid waste collection surcharge represented a fair and equitable revenue source that would be easy to admini- strate. Mr. Zelenka commented that state funds from HB 2001 would not be seen locally for more than a year if in fact the bill actually passed. Ms. Piercy noted that the overwhelming indication from the public and the City’s budget committee had been that the repair and maintenance of local roadways was of paramount importance. She further maintained that if citizens were to use smaller garbage containers, or similarly reduce their level of garbage service, that would not necessarily be bad for the community. Ms. Piercy expressed that the City was currently prohibited from implementing a vehicle registration fee as Ms. Taylor had previously suggested. Ms. Piercy read the motion that had been recently passed by the Budget Committee: “Move that the Budget Committee recommend that the City Council impose a 5% transportation surcharge on solid waste haulers to generate an estimated $900,000 for road maintenance and operations. All monies collected are to be designated to local streets for operations and maintenance. Should the City receive any extra road funding from state or other sources in the 2010 budget cycle, that money should be used first to offset the fees as a priority in order to rescind the surcharge.” Mr. Pryor felt that the solid waste collection surcharge was not the right mechanism to address the operations and maintenance funding gaps and maintained that the City should continue to explore the use of a transportation utility fee. Mr. Clark maintained that the solid waste collection surcharge represented a short term fix to the operations and that maintenance funding problems and other state funding mechanisms might provide more long-term solutions. Mr. Clark indicated he would be willing to reconstitute a subcommittee of the council to explore long- term funding solutions for operations and maintenance funding. Mr. Zelenka expressed that foregoing the solid waste collection surcharge would cause a serious service reduction with respect to local roadways and amounted to a significant step backwards with regards to the City’s responsibility to maintain local roadways. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka felt that a street utility fee might be used to fill other portions of the operations and maintenance funding gaps in conjunction with the solid waste collection surcharge. Mr. Zelenka noted that HB 2001 would prohibit any new local gas taxes from being created until 2014 and that the current City gas tax expired in 2011. Mr. Zelenka expressed that to delay the solid waste collection surcharge would only make the roadway problems in Eugene and surrounding areas worse. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, commented that the council could vote to make the City’s local gas tax permanent within 91 days after the signing of HB 2001. Mr. Poling noted he had received a countless number of emails and phone calls from citizens who opposed the solid waste collection surcharge. Ms. Taylor expressed that the council should work to make the local gas tax permanent and further maintained that the City’s leaders had not tried hard enough to implement a vehicle registration fee. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the City Council adopt City Council Bill 5002, an ordinance concerning solid waste administrative powers and amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971. The motion failed, 3:5 (Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Poling voting in opposition). Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing/Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 15, 2009 8 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown, Chris Pryor. Council President Zelenka called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He explained that Mayor Kitty Piercy would not be able to attend the meeting because of a death in the family. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4980 Electing to Receive State Revenue Sharing Funds Pursuant to Section 221.770 of Oregon Revised Statutes; Resolution 4981 Certifying that the City of Eugene Provides the Municipal Services Required by Oregon Revised Statues Section 221.760 in Order to Receive State Shared Revenues; and Resolution 4982 Adopting the Budget, Making Appropriations, Determining, Levying and Cate- gorizing the Annual Property Tax Levy for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Ad Valorem Beginning July 1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2010 Councilor Zelenka reviewed the guidelines for testimony and opened the public hearing. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, Ward 3, thanked the council for all of the hard work they had done on the budget cycle. He expressed some dismay regarding the result of the vote on the garbage haulers fee. While he respected the vote, he disagreed with it. He averred that there would be a cost, in service reductions, to the vote. He underscored that a promise had been made to the citizens to fix potholes, but he believed that no potholes would be fixed in the coming year because of the decision to oppose the fee. He urged the council to meet its commitment made to the citizens of Eugene. He likened it to the County Commissioners saying they would fund the jail in the previous year and then not funding it after all. Judith Van , 89236 Old Coburg Road, asked if approval of the budget would mean that the funding for the Chad Drive and Crest Drive projects was locked in. She observed that it would cost $2 million to extend Chad Drive for one-quarter of a mile and asked if that money would not be better spent filling potholes. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing. Councilor Solomon asked staff to respond to Ms. Van’s questions. City Engineer Mark Schoening explained that the cost of the Chad Drive project was more than the Crest Drive project because it was a bigger project with bicycle lanes and multi-lane development. He said the City had to purchase a substantial amount of right-of-way. He noted that funding for both projects had been appropriated several years earlier, with the last portion appropriated in September, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 1 Public Hearing Councilor Poling recalled that the vote on the garbage hauler fee in the Budget Committee had been 10:4. He thought the Budget Committee should have known there would be a problem with the tax given that it had been voted down twice by the City Council on previous occasions. While he respected the fact that the citizen members of the Budget Committee had taken time to learn and understand the budget, the council had heard from many people beside the members of the Budget Committee in regard to the tax and they were “overwhelmingly” opposed to it. He said there were other funds available and the City might not have to take the $1 million set aside for the overlays. He averred that times changed, things happened, and sometimes a person just had to adapt, improvise, and overcome. Councilor Ortiz indicated that she had supported the garbage hauler fee. She expressed appreciation for Mr. Barofsky’s testimony and for his time on the Budget Committee. Councilor Clark noted that Mr. Barofsky had chaired the Budget Committee and had done a very good job of running the meeting. He disagreed regarding the garbage hauler fee. He was glad they had brought up the issue for discussion and consideration, but he recognized that the citizen members were mostly from a particular area of town. He said the council had heard from a lot of different parts of the community and the council was charged with making decisions based on input from across the board. He agreed that they should be looking for other ways to backfill the work that needed to be done. Councilor Pryor acknowledged his role in the process. He had advocated strongly for the Budget Committee to discuss the garbage hauler fee and they had done so. He had supported it at the Budget Committee level. He said situations sometimes changed. He had opted to pass on the revenue source because he believed there were other revenue sources they could pursue. He hoped that they could raise revenue collaboratively. Councilor Zelenka thanked Mr. Barofsky for his service as chair of the Budget Committee. Councilor Zelenka adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 7:48 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1052 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene Adopting the Budget, Mak- ing Appropriations, and Declaring the Amount of Tax to be Received for the Fiscal Year Begin- ning July 1, 2009, and Ending June 30, 2010 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one was present who wished to give testimony, he closed the hearing. Councilor Zelenka adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 7:49 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4983 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2008, and Ending June 30, 2009 Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, indicated that an item in Supplemental Budget 3 had caught his attention. He explained that it showed that in the Road Capital Projects Fund there had been a change that showed recognition of $110,000 in revenues from the University of Oregon for utility work in the right-of- MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 2 Public Hearing way that also increased appropriations by that same amount, in order to allow project teams to respond to requests from the public and other City departments for transportation capital and planning. He had not been sure what that had meant. He said in these times, if someone gave the City $110,000 it should be spent on asphalt for roads rather than going to staff to plan more projects. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing. Councilor Clark asked staff to address his question. Mr. Schoening responded that funding for the project teams came from capital projects and this was the only way to pay salaries. He stressed that this type of funding paid for upfront costs for projects such as the arena, which included appraisals and project review. Councilor Clark thanked him on behalf of the people of Bond Lane for the “fine effort.” 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4984 Forming a Local Improvement District (LID) for Paving, Constructing Curbs, Sidewalks, Medians, Street Lights, Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Facilities on Crest Drive from Blanton Road to Lincoln Street, Storey Boulevard from Crest Drive to Lorane High- th way, and Friendly Street from Lorane Highway to 28 Avenue (Job #4546) Councilor Zelenka opened the public hearing. Judith Van , 89236 Old Coburg Road, thanked the City for the subsidy she had received to help pay for the assessment she had been charged for road improvements. She wanted to reiterate that when projects happened they affected a discreet population. In her case, only three people were affected. She felt that many people were detrimentally affected by the process as the assessments were “too high.” She averred that the eight percent interest charged on City loans was also too high. She requested that the City Council direct the City Attorney and the City Manager to revise the code and to make it retroactive to the current projects. She indicated she would be happy to help if citizen help was needed. Robbin Howard , 3217 Whitten Drive, Ward 2, supported the formation of the Local Improvement District (LID). She asked that the road be made safe and that the construction begin this summer. She hoped the council would vote with an overwhelming majority to overturn the remonstrance submitted by the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street residents. She agreed that they needed to change the funding model. She hoped the City could allocate some staff time to research best practices in other communities. She believed the funding method would continue to be an issue for people. She appreciated the council’s willingness to proceed with the project though there was discomfort about the assessment policy. She suggested that the City could set up a “subscripted gift fund” in order to encourage non-assessed citizens to contribute. She also wondered if they could add language to the project that would allow the City to consider partially reimbursing the citizens should the City experience a monetary windfall at a later date. She understood that as elected officials the councilors had a great deal of fiduciary responsibility. She said the City had likely spent “well over $500,000” on the project thus far and asked that the council not “waste” that money. She declared that the longer the City waited to do the project, the more expensive it would become. Marion Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, turned in two additional signatures of remonstrance, noting that the total was now 88. She averred that every time the City assessed for road improvements, the people remonstrated. She asked how many more times the council would go through this before they changed the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 3 Public Hearing policy. She felt there would always be landowners opposed to such assessments. She asked anyone in the audience who did not intend to speak but was opposed to the assessments to stand and one person did so. Ruth South , 697 Crest Drive, supported the road improvement project but opposed the assessment. She felt that the assessment was an extreme hardship for a small number of property owners. She thought the costs of improvements should be shared by those properties that could only be accessed via Crest Drive. She averred that the system was unfair, though it might have been acceptable some years earlier when construction costs were lower and there was no threat of losing home ownership and when the economic climate was better than the current one. She urged the City Council to declare a delay in order to allow for some change in the financing of the improvements. Jan Fillinger , 695 Crest Drive, voiced his support for the project, but he believed that only assessing 126 residents when “hundreds and even thousands benefit daily” was unjust. He related that for his family the assessment would be $14,000. He had heard Councilor Poling state that 98 cents per month per household [for the garbage hauler fee] was a lot and that he did not feel comfortable asking the citizens to pay it. He thought that it would be more just if the City asked everyone to pay for street improvements just as they asked everyone to pay for public safety services. He said given the “dire economy,” to assess that much of a few families and then charge eight percent interest was “not fair.” He understood that the council had originally budgeted $5.75 million for the project, but bids had come in much lower. He had been told that there were reasons why the project could not use all of the money. He felt the council had indicated that it was willing to pay that much and suggested that the money be utilized to reduce the assessments. He observed that everyone on the council and nearly all of the neighbors believed that the assessment was unfair. He respected the work that had gone into the project. Kathy Saranpa , 3015 Friendly Street, Ward 2, stated that 75 linear feet of her street frontage would be assessed if the council approved the LID and she hoped they would proceed to do so. Regarding fairness, she pointed out that Crest Drive residents had been using roads that others had paid for out of their assessments. She averred that it was “grossly unfair” to ask for a different assessment policy when it was “[their] turn.” She related that paying the assessment would be a hardship for her, but the area residents had been hearing about the project for at least five years at neighborhood meetings, open houses, and through newsletters and newspaper articles. She declared that not only had the residents had time to prepare financially for the project, there were also loans and subsidies available and the possibility of donations from residents in the neighborhood and those outside of it. She believed there was plenty of time to work out the details as the project would be spread out over two summers. She remarked that she could have gone and collected signatures, saying to sign if people wanted the road to be built. She felt it was a person’s choice what to say when collecting signatures and found it shocking that a petition that had legal effect was not strictly limited in terms of how issues it engaged were framed or communicated. She related that the person who had come to her door had known very little about the history of the project, nor had she understood that the petition could halt the project. She said even after she had explained to the woman, the woman had asked if she would sign out of solidarity for those who found the assessment policy unfair. She asserted that at least two people had called the City in an attempt to have their signatures removed from the petition once they had realized that a halt to the project was possible. She declared that the number of volunteer hours that had gone into the project alone should make it worthy of completion. She said the “trust issue” between the City and the Crest citizens had been “successfully overcome” to create the design. She opined that if the council voted to “kill” the project, they would also be voting to “kill the hard won trust” that had taken time and effort to build. She urged the council to drive on the roads before making its decision in order to decide how badly in need of repair they were. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 4 Public Hearing Jeffrey Librett , 920 Crest Drive, considered the assessment policy to be outmoded and unfair. He supported the formation of a policy that would have everyone in the City pay for all road improvements. He opined that the fact that the policy had been long-standing did not legitimate its “eternal perpetuation.” He considered the project to be too costly. He thought that given there was no cost limit written into the law, the costs to homeowners could be allowed to become unaffordable. He averred that the law should contain a cap. He found fault with the Hearings Official process because the neighbors were not consulted about the assessment policy. He did not believe he had been adequately educated regarding assessments during the time that the road project was being considered. He called the road project and assessments a “forced choice under very constrained circumstances.” He predicted that the law would be changed eventually and it seemed to him that not to change it now was only to avoid “dealing with the problem out of timidity or in an attempt to avoid the hassle of it.” th Kathleen Bosteder , 55 West 30 Avenue, Ward 2, stated that she had served as secretary to the Crest Drive Association since 2006. She regretted that she had felt she had to testify because she had hoped that the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street rebuild would come to a successful end in what she termed “our cantankerous neighborhood” and they would be able to move forward with a much-needed street rebuild. She related that at the close of the May 19 neighborhood association meeting an assessed resident announced that she wanted to present a motion that would cause the association to write a letter to the City Council and City Engineer’s office asking for a delay in the street project. She said the person had indicated that what she really wanted was for the whole assessment process to be changed citywide. She stated that the proposed motion had not been on the published agenda and many interested parties who would oppose the delay were not present at the meeting. She noted that whether or not the meeting had been adjourned at the time was also still in question. She felt that passing the motion would set aside all of the work done by the Crest Drive Street Community Team. She related that 18 people had been in attendance, 10 of whom were from assessed Crest Drive residences, and most were not regular meeting attendees. The vote had been 11:4, with two abstentions, to write the letter. She was present to register her concern that the submitted letter was not representational and was far from being the true intent of many in the Crest Drive Neighbor- hood. She noted that generally the association considered ten to be a quorum and that the chair did not consider the association to be fully united behind the request for the delay. She stated that the association had voted on February 12, 2008, to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed street design. She submitted her testimony in writing. Bill Hirsh , 3210 Storey Boulevard, echoed support for the project. He recommended the council direct the City Manager to work on the assessment policy. He suggested that the City take the money committed to the project and keep it in the project which would reduce the assessments and make them more manageable. He noted that the City had taken lower bids and had reduced its share by 50 percent and the residents share by 20 percent. He also wanted to recommend that the City assess people the same minimum amount and not by assessing people by linear road frontage. Additionally, he asked that the City come up with a zero percent interest rate for its loans. Cindy Breaux , 3240 Inspiration Point, voiced her support for the project. She asked the council to please not delay it any longer. She expressed concern for the safety of the children who walked or rode their bicycles to school in the area. She declared that the roads definitely needed to be repaired. She asked the council to “think outside the box” and get the project moving forward. She remarked that it was a beautiful road design and that people had spent a lot of time, effort, and money on it already. Jules DeGiulio , 3205 Whitten Drive, Ward 2, asked the council to please overturn the recently submitted remonstrance. He did not wish to address the assessments. He felt that even if the assessment language was imperfect, the ordinances in question had been in effect for years and were well known by the residents in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 5 Public Hearing LID. He noted that the question of whether the streets were collectors or residential streets had also been established years earlier. He believed that the overriding issue was the safety of the 250 children who attended Crest Drive Elementary School. He said though his home was only a quarter-mile from his son’s school, he could not allow his son to walk to school alone or with a friend. He felt it was the responsibility of the community to provide safe walking and bicycling streets and to not do this was a “full-scale community failure.” He averred that the street design that the citizens had worked with the City to develop would provide the best and safest option. He said until the stretch of road was improved, he could not allow his son to walk to school alone. He opined that the community had “stolen” from its children “a milestone in their growth toward independence.” William Jaeger , 3201 Inspiration Point Drive, stated that he was an economics professor and did research on land economics and land use regulations. He saw two distinct issues to be solved: 1) whether the road project had public support, and 2) whether the rules for LID assessments were fair. He observed, regarding the former, that the project was approved and funded and nearly all of the residents wanted it to go forward. He said the second issue had to do with fairness, which was judged by whether the same rules were applied consistently across similar situations. He noted that the City had applied the rules in other parts of the City. He opined that if the City stopped the project as a result of the petition, it would be unfair to the other Crest area residents who had waited “years” for the roads to be fixed and it would also be unfair to the other city residents who had paid assessments under the same rules. He said if the rules were fair, they should be applied, and if they were unfair, they should be changed. He had found many of the recent arguments of the petitioners against the project to be “unpersuasive.” The only issue raised that he had found to have merit was that it was unfair that people in cul de sacs who only had access to their residences via the streets in the LID were not assessed. He averred that if it was the council’s collective judgment that the existing rules were fair, then there was no justification for delaying the project further. And if the council felt otherwise, he asked that the council then change the rules and not delay the project. He felt that the legal counsel could find a creative way to grandfather in the project if the council decided to change the assessment policy. Neal Spangler , 963 Tiara Court, stated that he owned property on Friendly Street. He appreciated and honored the work that had gone into the project design. He believed they were doing the best they could do to maintain the character of the streets. He said because of the unique location, by default the streets would be collector streets. For this reason, he felt the assessments to be unfair. He asked that the council review the policy. He averred that the few were paying for the many. He added that he preferred the potholes because it slowed down traffic. He added that if he could refinance his home with an annual percentage rate of less than five percent, the City should not charge eight percent in interest. Connie Wonham , 3208 Whitten Drive, asked the council to vote to form the LID without further delay. She declared that the need for road improvements was obvious. She wanted them to uphold the original directive and get the work started. She said hundreds of people used the roads daily and were forced to drive on substandard roads though they also paid taxes. She felt it was most important to protect the safety of the children, runners, bikers, and dogs who tried “to navigate” the streets every day. She thought there should be some solutions to the objections put forth by the neighbors that could derail the project. She urged the council to implement the “great street design” that had come out of collaborative effort between the neighbors and the City. Marlene Varady , 420 Crest Drive, shared Margaret Mead’s quote regarding the power of a small group of thoughtful citizens to change the world. She had lived on Crest Drive for 25 years and had raised four children there. She agreed that the streets were dangerous. She understood that there were a lot of people accessing the roads and wondered if some of the cul de sac residents could help to pay for the assessments. She appreciated the council’s willingness to listen to the residents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 6 Public Hearing Richard Wohlberg , 310 Crest Drive, had heard Councilor Taylor’s “sincere concern” that a delay to the project would cost more later. While he appreciated this, it seemed to him that changing the assessments was not an option for the councilors. He commented that it might be unfair to change something that had been unfair and everyone else had dealt with it already, but there could be a point at which it was changed. He was interested in hearing from the councilors just how difficult it would be to change the assessment policy. Bill Eddie , 830 Crest Drive, Ward 2, gave kudos to City Engineer Mark Schoening and his engineering team. He felt they had done a “great job” of helping with the design work and putting together the presentation they had for the neighbors. He related that many had felt that the Hearings Official had not shown much interest in the “sincere financial concerns” expressed to him. He opined that the Hearings Official’s recommendations seemed “biased and predetermined.” He said the report included a statement that indicated that a call to change the assessments would be a call to cancel the project. He averred that “rational people” could find a way to proceed with the project and make it financially affordable. He noted that no one at the hearing called for killing the project. He stated that their only goal was to change the assessment policy and to put an end to “this unfair tax.” He believed a citywide assessment to be the best idea. He echoed support for a plan to assess parcels on unimproved and private streets that had no option other than traveling on Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street for access. He opined that spreading the financial pain made sense in difficult financial times. Toby Gamberoni , 691 Crest Drive, Ward 2, reiterated that the project should go ahead, but the assessment policy should be changed. He agreed with the comments made regarding a possible citywide assessment or the potential assessment of people who lived in cul de sacs. He averred that even if he was not assessed, he would give his full support to changing the policy. He felt that the City of Eugene was meant to be a progressive, green city that should be an example and move forward to create a better system and a better future. th Fred Lorish , 897 West 36 Avenue, Ward 2, said after nearly six years of effort, the Crest Drive improvements had come to a remonstration, which appeared to be saying the design “was okay” but the assessments were not. He suspected all of the residents in the neighborhood agreed in principle with the concerns that had been raised. He urged the council, however, to move forward with the improvement. He suggested that the council commit itself to seeking a new, innovative, and equitable system of assessing the citizens for road and infrastructure improvement. He also urged the council to move the present LID forward in spite of the remonstrations. He averred that it would get the project going at a time in which costs were significantly reduced. He felt that the council should acknowledge that two of the currently planned road projects had raised serious citizen scrutiny. He asked that the council grandfather those projects so that if the assessment system was changed, they would fall under the newly adopted system. He stated that the Crest Drive Community Team had spent three years on the road design, with some having worked on it for six years. He reiterated that the council should not wait any longer. Mike Lafferty , 766 Crest Drive, supported much of what had been said regarding the equities of the current means of assessing the street owner. He said given that the majority of the people in that area lived on cul de sacs, the council should see if there was not a way to make the assessments more equitable for everyone. He had lived on Crest Drive for most of his life and agreed that the streets needed improving. Ron Gietter , 990 Sundance Road, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the 23 homeowners who were in the South Point Homeowners Association. He had lived in that area for 29 years. It seemed to him that the roads were just as bad 29 years ago as they were in the present. He had been pleased to see that the City MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 7 Public Hearing was taking action to improve the roads. He acknowledged the work that the City had done collaboratively with neighborhood residents to come up with a sensitive design for the project. He recalled that in the meetings there had been discussions of how the project would be paid for. He found it hard to believe that th the assessments were a surprise to a lot of people “in the 11 hour.” He thought the process had been “great,” noting that the council and Mayor had praised the project. He stated that when he had bought his lot in South Point, he had paid for the roads. He said the assessment policy might take years of discussion, but the roads needed to be fixed now. He pointed out that delaying the project would run the risk of having costs skyrocket again. Wendy Dudelheim , 3385 Storey Boulevard, asked that the council reevaluate assessments. She said the assessment was a tremendous burden. She echoed the suggestion that assessments be spread over the residents who accessed their cul de sac properties via the LID streets. She pointed out that other traffic traveled on the streets, notably traffic coming from Lane County roads, and suggested that the City see if it would be possible to garner funding from the county. She felt that the assessment policy was archaic. She added that she did not have children and wondered if some of the taxes she paid for the public school system could be diverted into the roads. Steve Hirons , 736 Crest Drive, stated that his house was for sale and the assessment would affect the selling price. He averred that 70 percent of the traffic consisted of vehicles traveling through the area and not people who lived there. He reiterated that 65 percent of the area residents had signed a petition of remonstrance. He declared that it was a “terrible time” to burden people with a bill to fix the streets. He asked that the council consider adding more subsidies given that the bids had come in lower. He predicted that a lot of people would face a painful burden. He said the residents in the LID would welcome monetary involvement from the residents who could only access their houses via Crest Drive. John Rude , 1207 Courtney Place, Ward 2, spoke on behalf of the Crest Dive Community Team Advisory Group. The association believed the Crest Drive project was in jeopardy due to the remonstrance. He asked that the council have a solution in mind, should it honor the remonstration. He said there was no need to change the assessment, but the council could influence how the City and the neighbors shared the burden of the cost. He noted that the City had estimated its share to be $3.5 million and the residents’ share to be $2.6 million. He related that the recent bids had changed the overall cost from $5.75 million to $3.79 million. He noted that the City’s portion had dropped by 44 percent, but the residents’ portion dropped only 22 percent. He said though this improved the situation, it only dropped the residents’ portion from approximately $20,000 to approximately $15,000. He suggested that the City could consider paying its original estimate, which would drop the residents’ portion to $641,376. He thought the City could also cobble together money from its potential swap of $1 million with the Lane County Road Fund. He said the funding sources could create a more reasonable assessment, approximately $5,000 per property, and would help the remonstrators support the project to move forward. Rick Robertson , 839 Crest Drive, Ward 2, said he had purchased his house knowing about the assessment. He supported the project as designed and wanted the project to proceed as planned. He asked the council to look at all of the options to reduce the financial burden of the assessment policy, even if it would not reduce the assessments for the proposed LID. He asked for more information about the bond sales and the interim interest rates. Regarding any recent developments on cul de sacs, he was pretty sure they were built under the process that did not require paying prevailing wage, which would increase costs. Joe Collins , P.O. Box 2411, Ward 8, commented that the only time public hearings garnered this much interest was when the Crest Drive people were present to complain about the cost of road improvements. He understood that in 2004, the residents had opposed the road design and had initiated the collaborative MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 8 Public Hearing process to change the design. He said if anyone who had bought their house in the last five years did not know they would be assessed for the road improvements, they should talk to their realtor. He would like to thst see the area residents pay their fair share and bring their roads “into at least the 20 century if not the 21.” He was proud to live in a democracy, but he thought the “Crest Drive juggernaut” had taken too much of the City Council’s time. He opined that the people in that area were wealthy and that was why they would not take no for an answer and would not give up. He wanted the council to work harder for the poor of Eugene. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing and opened the floor for comments from the council. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She recalled that the Crest Drive area residents had come forward and asked that the council not designate Crest Drive as a collector because they wanted to have control over the design. She said at the time she had felt hesitant because of the high traffic use of the road, but she had voted to support it because that was what the neighborhood residents had wanted. She related that in listening to the testimony, it seemed to her that people did not want to pay at all for road assessments. Regarding the suggestion that the whole city be assessed for road improvements, she pointed to the recent testimony in opposition of the garbage hauler fee, which would have cost residents approx- imately 98 cents. She did not believe that a citywide assessment would get any traction at all. She also did not think a “no build” was an option. She felt the question was how to offset the costs and indicated that she would look to giving direction, pending legality, as to how cul de sacs could be included for assessments when the policy was revisited. She said they should also determine how others could donate for an LID they were not being assessed for and whether a change in the assessment structure could be retroactive to the present projects. She asked staff also to look into how the interest rate on the loans from the City to help with assessments could be lowered. Councilor Solomon asked why the changes in the estimate were distributed differently between the City and the neighborhood residents. Mr. Schoening replied that the City had first developed the cost estimate of $5.75 million two years earlier based upon a conceptual design and costs in the past. He related that as the City moved forward with construction, it received bids from contractors who based their bids in a more forward-looking way. He stated that the project consisted of “over a hundred different items” in the bid schedule. He said the items in the City’s share were different from the items that were assessable. He explained that following a complex code, as had happened after the project was opened for bids, resulted in the total project costs going down, with the City’s share and the assessed share both decreasing, but the assessed share by a smaller percentage. He commented that there was no easily explainable answer. City Manager Jon Ruiz asked if there was an example of an item for which the City would pay 100 percent. Mr. Schoening could not think of a specific example, but one example of a shared cost was asphalt. He said when the estimates were developed the asphalt prices had skyrocketed but, at present, the prices were at their lowest in years. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for everyone’s testimony. He asked staff to review for him the ramifications of delaying the road improvements so that the policy could be revisited. Mr. Schoening explained that the City Charter required that changes to the assessment code be done by general ordinance and that they do not go into effect for six months after enactment. He said they would not be able to form an LID under a changed policy until after it had been in effect for six months. Councilor Clark underscored that delaying the project would mean it would not be initiated until the next year. He then asked if it was within the council’s purview to direct that the initial money budgeted be restored to the project and to use the extra monies to help buy down assessments. Mr. Schoening responded that this was part of the discussion the council engaged in at the work session in March, 2009. He stated MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 9 Public Hearing that all three of the projects had come in under the engineers’ estimate. He said some of the funding for the projects came from stormwater SDCs and transportation SDCs, which had City and state regulatory restrictions as to how they were used and could not be used to buy down assessments. He explained that a portion of the funds that had been appropriated for the Crest Drive LID, the county road funds and delayed assessments, could be used to buy down the assessment on one or all three of the projects. He noted that this amounted to $500,000. Councilor Clark thought that if they aided people in paying assessments on one project, they should do so for all three of the projects. He reiterated that the issue of affordability was significant. He felt that the policy in question was not as important as not putting a person out of their house in order to fix a road. Councilor Taylor averred that there must be a way to make the assessments less burdensome. She suggested that the City Manager and City Attorney should try to figure it out. She believed that the project needed to happen. She had been disappointed to learn that it would take six months for a change in the assessment policy to be enacted after the council voted to change it. She said area residents would welcome contribu- tions from anyone who wanted to help with their assessments. She noted that such a donation was a tax deduction. She understood that it would be possible to change the interest rate for the financing through the City. She said she would like to see the City provide loans with no interest. Mr. Schoening clarified that the eight percent interest rate that was established by administrative order was the interim rate from the time assessments were levied until the City sold bonds, approximately six months. He said for the remainder of the payback period, the interest rate would be based on what the market rate was. He said staff was committed to reviewing the interim interest rate so that it would relate more to the current market rate. Councilor Poling thanked everyone for their testimony, and also for their emails. He had appreciated the comments of councilors Ortiz, Solomon, and Clark. He asked if it would be legal to grandfather in existing projects if the council changed the assessment policy. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that it was not. He stressed that under the City Charter an ordinance could only be enacted six months after a vote and could not be retroactive. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Poling, Mr. Klein replied that citizens could remonstrate for any reason and did not have to be specific. He also clarified that there were no rules to govern how someone collecting signatures for remonstrance could or should present the issue. Councilor Poling understood that state laws and City ordinances dictated that the City’s portion could only be used for certain things in certain amounts. Mr. Schoening responded that this was true on the Maple Street/Elmira Road project and the Chad Drive/Old Coburg Road project because the City’s share of that project was from transportation SDCs. He said all three project utilized stormwater SDC funds. The SDC monies could not be used to help buy down assessments. Councilor Poling recalled that the first conversation he had on the City Council was in regard to the assessment policy and Arcadia Drive. He said a number of streets needed upgrading. He did not believe it was fair for a street to foot the whole bill when other side streets and cul de sacs only had egress via the street that was being assessed. He hoped that they could consider the policy and move to change it faster than some issues had taken in the past. Councilor Clark concurred. He also wanted to expedite the conversation on assessments. He said there were many streets in his ward that were unimproved. He recalled that if the owners of over 50 percent of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 10 Public Hearing assessed linear footage had signed a remonstrance it would require a two-thirds vote of the council to proceed. Mr. Schoening responded that the signed remonstrance had made the project go before two public hearings, one before the Hearings Official and one before the City Council, and he confirmed the need for a two-thirds majority. Councilor Clark surmised that it would then take six votes to move the LID forward. Councilor Zelenka indicated that he would submit his questions to staff via email. He adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 11 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 22, 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 meetings to obtain public input on a new police facility and moving City offices would be held on June 23 and June 25. A. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee Next Steps Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary provided an overview of the three ordinance revisions identified by the council as requiring further discussion: complaints against the police chief, classification of complaints and timing of investigations. She said a working group composed of councilors Zelenka, Ortiz, Pryor and Poling convened to work on those issues and referred to Attachment B to the agenda item summary, which contained recommendations from the working group as well as from the City Attorney. Mr. Zelenka explained his proposed language for Section 2.454(5) and said it embodied the working group’s comments and addressed concerns from the City Manager. Ms. Piercy determined that all members of the working group agreed with the language. She asked the City Attorney to discuss his recommended changes to the proposed language. City Attorney Glenn Klein said deletion of the first sentence and a section at the end of the second sentence would remove ambiguity and clarify intent. He also suggested removing the language requiring the City Manager to notify the council of an allegation against the police chief as that was not part of the current process when a complaint was filed against a police officer, although there was no legal obstacle to retaining that language. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Klein’s recommendations, with the exception of deleting the requirement that the City Manager notify the council. He felt the council should be made aware of any allegations against the police chief so members would not be caught off guard in the event of questions from the media or public. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern with the notification requirement as the council was not typically informed if there were complaints against any of the other executives who reported to the City Manager. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Poling that the council should receive notification. He said the working group’s intent with the language at the end of the second sentence was to distinguish that the allegation related to the police chief’s action as a police officer, not to the administrative duties of the chief. He asked MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 1 Work Session if language should be added that would clarify the section did not apply to the police chief’s administrative actions. Mr. Klein said his proposed language was intended to make that distinction, but he would do some research if the council wished to add language specifying administrative functions were excluded as there were times when other sworn officers also had administrative duties. He would develop language that made it clear the section referred to administrative duties unique to the police chief. Mr. Pryor commented that the police chief was both a department head and a police officer. He said when the chief was acting as a department head, he or she, should not be treated differently than any other department head. He felt the notification requirement should be discussed further with respect to its applicability to other department heads and whether notification should be limited to allegations based on the chief’s performance as a sworn officer. Mr. Clark asked for the City Manager’s opinion on the notification issue and whether it should apply to any complaint against the police chief, including complaints from officers. City Manager Jon Ruiz said the police chief was unique among department heads because of the dual roles of sworn police officer and administrator. He felt that complaints from officers regarding administrative or operational issues should not be subject to the police auditor process. He was comfortable that the current process available to all City employees for registering complaints was acceptable for addressing administrative concerns. Police Chief Pete Kerns said the police chief had duties and responsibilities that were vastly different from those of a police officer, but there were times that the chief acted in the capacity of a police officer. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to delete the first sentence and delete the last part of the last sentence of the first paragraph as per the city attorney; di- rect the city attorney to bring back language that says this section shall not apply to the police chief’s administrative duties, and not delete “notify the council” with re- spect to Section 2.454(5). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Medary reviewed the working group’s proposed language and City Attorney’s recommended revisions to Section 2.456(1)(d) as set forth in Attachment B. Mr. Klein explained that his recommendation clarified an ambiguity with respect to the police auditor’s authority to classify and reclassify complaints. Mr. Brown asked why the proposed language included the phrase “but before the completion of the investigation.” Mr. Zelenka said the language would allow the auditor to reclassify complaints during an investigation, but once the investigation was concluded and the complaint was proceeding toward adjudication it could not be reclassified. Mr. Poling pointed out that if additional information was obtained after adjudication a new complaint could be filed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark moved to accept the city attorney’s language for Section 2.456(1)(d). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Medary stated that the working group had requested input from the incoming police auditor on Section 2.456(2)(a-f) and the response from Mark Gissiner had been distributed to councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said there were different opinions on the timing of investigations and the working group agreed that it was appropriate for the police auditor and police chief to develop a process for consideration by the council. Mr. Pryor remarked there were two competing interests: the need to avoid interfering with a criminal investigation and the need to complete administrative investigations in a timely manner. He felt those issues could be resolved through a collaborative working relationship between the police auditor and police chief and that was why the working group was willing to wait on the outcome of those discussions. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the council direct the City Man- ager to work with the new Police Auditor on recommended language and protocols related to the concurrency of administrative and criminal investigations and return before summer break with a final ordinance for action by the council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Poling hoped the City Manager understood the council’s intent was for the police chief to be in- volved in those discussions. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Supervision of Police Auditor Human Resources Director Alana Holmes stated that the purpose of the work session was to determine how the council wished to conduct supervision of the police auditor. She said areas of interest for the council’s discussion included preferred types of communications, meetings, availability for responding to issues that might arise regarding performance or behavior and processing issues or concerns related to the police auditor. She noted that a form entitled Police Auditor Monthly Activity Report was included as Attachment A to the agenda item summary. Mr. Klein suggested that the council discuss whether any changes were required to the formal complaint process it had approved and how complaints that did not fall within that formal process should be addressed. Ms. Piercy commented that several approaches to communication in terms of information sharing, coaching and critical feedback had been put forward, including designating the council officers, the council officers and the Mayor, or rotating the assignment among all council members. Mr. Clark asked if the City Attorney had any recommendations for dealing with complaints that did not involve legal issues and were supervisory in nature. He said he and Mr. Zelenka had been meeting weekly with the current auditor to discuss work flow, office operations, the budget and other administrative issues. He felt the process had worked well, but he was not certain it would be necessary to meet weekly with the new auditor and suggested that monthly meetings would be appropriate. He was in favor of continuing to have council officers provide that oversight. He was not certain if the Mayor needed to be included in that supervisory function. Mr. Zelenka stressed that the council needed to clarify that it supervised the police auditor and regular supervisory meetings with the auditor were necessary. He agreed that the current process was working well and said he and Mr. Clark were cognizant of the prohibition against influencing the outcomes of any investigations. He said their meetings with the auditor focused on workload, the budget and items that needed to be brought to the council’s attention. He said supervision by the council officers and Mayor would provide consistency, but that meant the rest of the council was not engaged in the process. Rotating supervision through all councilors would engage everyone and if the Mayor was present at the meetings that MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 3 Work Session could provide consistency. He suggested that the council include on its agenda a report on those supervisory meetings with the police auditor as a regular and formal item. Ms. Taylor thought there should be regular meetings with the auditor and the full council monthly or every two months. She felt strongly the meetings should not be with just the council officers and supported rotating the assignment among all councilors. She said continuity could be achieved by assigning two councilors and changing one each month. She said all councilors should be involved and know what was happening and those who met with the auditor should be responsible for reporting back to the council. She said the councilors who were providing supervision should meet with the auditor every week or every two weeks. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to find a reasonable approach to managing the police auditor position that avoided both too little supervision and micromanagement. He was comfortable with council officers providing the day-to-day supervision and liked the idea of bringing another councilor in on a rotating basis. He pointed out that the council was the official employer, but that did not mean the Mayor could not sit in on the meetings. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Klein stated that under the Charter the Mayor was regarded as a member of the council in certain circumstances and not in others. He said the ordinance specified that the council was the supervisor; council officers could not be named as the supervisor without changing the ordinance. He said the council could designate officers to be responsible for day-to-day supervision and include the Mayor if it wished, but that was not delegating authority to take any supervisory action; it only authorized supervisory communication and any action that needed to be taken had to be brought back to the council as a whole. Mr. Pryor supported designating the council officers and Mayor as the regular contact point with the police auditor and felt that meetings twice a month were reasonable. Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Klein and Ms. Holmes to develop procedures for addressing complaints formally and informally for the council to consider. She agreed that regular contact with the police auditor, perhaps on a bi-weekly basis, was important. She said it was also important to develop a closer working relationship with the auditor so that person understood the council’s expectations and had a better feel for the community and those who lived there; that process should include all councilors. She liked the format of the monthly activity report document. She stated that any email communication between the police auditor and those designated to provide day-to-day oversight should go to the entire council. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Ortiz about sharing with the full council any communications between the auditor and council officers. He supported designating council officers to meeting regularly with the auditor and felt that should occur monthly or more frequently if the auditor and officers deemed it necessary. He was neutral on the issue of adding a third councilor to the meetings on a rotating basis, but did not feel it was necessary as the council officers were capable of providing the supervision. He concurred with the request for written procedures for handling complaints against the police auditor. Mr. Klein remarked that the current complaint process in the code related to all City employees and asked if the council wanted to develop a different informal process just for the auditor or wanted that process to apply to each of the council’s employees. Mr. Poling said the process should be applicable to all of the council’s employees. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Solomon commented that if she were the police auditor she would not want a new supervisor meeting with her every month. She felt that was too disruptive and preferred that council officers meet with the auditor. Initially meetings could be every other week and eventually move to a monthly basis. She was interested in sitting in on those meetings and urged other councilors to take on that responsibility to engage. Mr. Brown liked the idea of having other councilors sit in on meetings with the auditor. He said all complaints, even those that did not allege violation of law, should fit within the existing framework. He said the council should be informed of any complaint against one of its employees and that employee should be able to respond to the complaint, regardless of its nature. He questioned how complaints would be classified and adjudicated. Mr. Zelenka noted that he and Mr. Clark had requested that all communications with the police auditor and city attorney go to all councilors. He stressed it was important that supervision be consistent and that all supervisors be engaged. He was intrigued by Ms. Taylor’s suggestion to designate two councilors with overlapping terms to rotate supervision among all members. He was concerned that bi-weekly meetings would be too much work and difficult to do. He supported the request for a formal process for handling non-violation complaints related to supervisory issues. Mr. Clark said any complaint process should apply to all council employees and preferred to have the provision related to dismissing a complaint if there was no response with seven days eliminated from the process for addressing non-violation complaints. He said the process should instead require that the complaint be sent to the council for action. He agreed with Mr. Zelenka that meetings with the new auditor could initially be bi-weekly and then monthly as time went on. He favored designating council officers to meet with the auditor. He said the meeting schedule could be made available to the full council and any member who was interested could attend. He agreed that any communications should include all councilors. Ms. Piercy said that the two previous police auditors had expressed an interest in having more interaction with councilors on a regular basis and asked the council to consider rotating the assignment. She encour- aged more frequent meetings initially with the new auditor and suggested that the council ask for status reports on whether recommendations from the auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB) to improve the system had been implemented. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that the Police Commission was the policy body for improving the system and took recommendations from the CRB under consideration. She noted that councilors could meet informally with the auditor at any time and all meetings did not need to be formal and structured. She did not have a preference for designating supervisors, but was comfortable with having the councilor officers continue in that role and allowing other councilors to attend the meetings on a voluntary basis. She encouraged the council to be supportive of the new auditor. Mr. Pryor said that fulfilling supervisory obligations relied on regular contact with employers and having a process that kept supervisors informed about issues and activities. He did not think that addressing basic managerial issues like work habits or schedules needed to involve the full council, but those types of issues were unlikely to arise with professionals like the auditor and City Manager. He agreed that the council officers should be designated to meet regularly with the auditor, with the opportunity for other councilors to sit in on the meetings. Mr. Poling said that designating the council officers as the contact point provided consistency and let the auditor know who to contact when there were issues or concerns that needed to be addressed. He supported the council officers as the supervisory contact point, while offering other councilors the opportunity to participate in meetings informally if they wished to. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council is the police au- ditor’s supervisor; there shall be bi-weekly meetings, shifting to monthly meetings when appropriate; meeting topics shall include workload, budget and items for council attention; the meetings shall be with the City Council officers, Mayor and a third rotating City Councilor who voluntarily signed up; encourage at least bi- monthly individual meetings between each councilor and the Police Auditor; pro- vide formal discussion time on the City Council agenda related to the police auditor on a regular basis; and direct the City Attorney to bring back recommended lan- guage for a process to handle non-violation complaints. Mr. Poling said the motion needed to include language specifying that the auditor should contact the council officers with questions and concerns as the identity of the third councilor would change. He did not feel that it was a good idea to include participation of the Mayor and a third councilor in the motion as that could occur informally. Mr. Zelenka accepted as a friendly amendment Mr. Poling’s suggestion to eliminate the reference to a third councilor and include language that required the Police Au- ditor to communicate directly with the council officers when issues or concerns arose and provide copies of the communication to the other councilors. He declined to accept elimination of the Mayor as a meeting participant. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to omit the Mayor as a member of the supervisory team. The motion failed, 3:5; Mr. Brown, Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka opposed. Mr. Clark said the Mayor was free to attend meetings with the police auditor, as were any of the other councilors, but he felt the motion would create some ambiguity about who the auditor should contact. He asked if it was Mr. Zelenka’s intent that the auditor could contact the Mayor or was that contact limited to the council officers. Mr. Zelenka said communications should go to the Mayor and council officers, with other councilors receiving copies. Ms. Taylor stated that she would not support the motion because all councilors should be involved. She did not think the auditor would have time to meet with officers and then with all the rest of the council. She said all councilors needed to be in touch with what was happening and any decisions should be made by the full council. Mr. Pryor said his impression was that the motion encouraged councilors to meet with the auditor individually but did not require it. He supported the inclusion of the Mayor, but considered council officers to be the auditor’s principal contacts on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Ortiz concurred with including the Mayor in the meetings, but expected that the council officers would set the agenda. Mr. Zelenka clarified that his motion encouraged other councilors to meet with the auditor at least every two months. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark assured the Mayor he meant no disrespect. He only wanted to avoid any confusion about how and where the auditor directed communications. The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor opposed. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 22, 2009 Page 7 Work Session