Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/08/09 Meeting 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 that the neighbors in her area had been very articulate in their opposition to what she considered to be a “very MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting 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 would go through. He noted the difficulty that people were experiencing in getting loans at present, which made it MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting 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. Councilor Taylor indicated she would oppose the bill. She believed it would encourage expansion of the UGB. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting 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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting 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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting 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, 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting 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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 11 Regular Meeting