Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A - Approval of MinutesEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: June 28, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2004, Work Session, May 24, 2004, Work Session, May 24, 2004, City Council Meeting, May 26, 2004, Work Session, and June 9, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. May 19, 2004, Work Session B. May 24, 2004, Work Session C. May 24, 2004, City Council Meeting D. May 26, 2004, Work Session E. June 9, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S0406282A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 19, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List City Manager Dennis Taylor said Public Works Director Kurt Corey and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) General Manager Susie Smith would summarize the Facilities Plan and the 20-Year Project list. Mr. Corey provided a brief synopsis of the development of waste treatment in the city of Eugene. He stated that prior to 1952, wastewater had been discharged directly into the Willamette River. At that time, communities, based on minimal regulatory guidance, implemented individual wastewater treatment systems that would be considered primitive by today's standards. He related that the initial wastewater treatment facilities did not meet the requirements set forth in federal legislation within the Clean Water Act in the 1970s. He said communities joined together at that time to treat wastewater at a regional level and, as a result, the MWMC had been formed in 1977. Its purpose was to provide regional policy oversight, with an initial focus on administration of approximately $85 million in federal grant money. He indicated, with a graph, the financing and general obligation (GO) bonds that were in the budget. He reiterated that the rate charged to citizens had not been increased in ten years. Mr. Corey said the facilities plan had been guided by the previous planning efforts with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, renewed in 2002. Mayor Torrey turned the gavel over to Council President Bettman, as he had another obligation which would require him to leave prior to the end of the meeting. Ms. Smith stated that what was before the council was the first rigorous comprehensive facility plan update which was intended to support the community through the year 2025, to support both growth and required environmental performance. She outlined the regulatory drivers that guided the resulting project list, as outlined in the attachment entitled Frequently Asked Questions About the 2004 MWMC Wastewater Facilities Plan and System Development Charge Methodology. She highlighted the treatment alternatives that were evaluated and their estimated costs. She said Option 5, the $144 million package, provided the same level of environmental compliance and performance as Option 1, the $233 million package. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Subsequently, the MWMC had proceeded with its recommendation for Option 5. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Smith to acknowledge the MWMC members that were present. She introduced them to the council. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was tertiary treatment. Ms. Smith responded that the plant was a secondary plant, but the installation of tertiary filtration was necessary to meet the new requirements. Matt Noeson, project manager for CH2M Hill, explained that the tertiary filters would enable the plant to handle 30 million gallons more per day over the 20-year study period, but not 100 percent of the plant flow would be filtered during that time. In response to another question from Mr. Pap~, Eugene Wastewater Plant Manager Dave Breitenstein stated that ambient water quality tests were conducted both downstream and upstream of the plant. He reported that the plant did not have a significant impact downstream. Ms. Smith clarified, in response to Mr. Pap~, that Mouse was the hydraulic modeling software that determined how the system behaved in peak wet weather. Mr. Pap~ noted there was a process for improvement of porous sewer line and wondered if making the lines impervious to stormwater would eliminate some of the need for improvements. Mr. Corey affirmed the plan took into consideration the wet weather flow and identified strategies for reduction inflow. Ms. Smith added that the desired outcome of the wet weather flow management plan was to come up with the most cost- effective combination of system rehabilitation and building capacity at the plant. She said it had been determined that system rehabilitation was not cost-effective. Ms. Smith affirmed for Mr. Pap~ that the City of Springfield was contributing its proportionate share. Mr. Kelly noted that CH2M Hill had allegedly analyzed the system earlier and determined that there was much dry weather capacity left, but that more recent analysis said there was none left. He asserted this resulted from a change in the methodology. Ms. Smith attributed the change to new discharge requirements for how the effluent was treated and also to an increase in load. Mr. Noeson stated that there had been a series of changes that had occurred since 1996, when the study had been conducted, not the least of which was an increase in population in the area of about 10 to 11 percent. Also, he said a limit had been included on the release of ammonia, and meeting the new limit required twice the amount of tanking. Mr. Kelly asked how this related to Goal 11. Dave Jewett, legal counsel for the MWMC, responded that in order to comply with Goal 11, facilities had to be constructed that would meet the requirements. In response to another question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Jewett stated that adoption of the facility plan and the related 20-year project list was not a land use decision, as per Oregon Revised Statute 223.297(s). He related that part of the statute required that a City adopt a facilities plan and project list prior to develop- ment of a systems development charge (SDC). Ms. Smith added that there was a separate process proposed to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Public Facilities Plan to update information on the wastewater treatment system pursuant to Oregon administrative rules. She underscored that this was a separate process, to be brought before the council after having been considered by the Planning Commission. Compliance with Goal 11 was ongoing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Smith explained that there was an ongoing cycle of maintenance, rehabilitation, and renewal, as the ~perfect pipe" that would last forever had yet to be developed. Ms. Bettman asked if pipes were being built to standards so that they would be easier to rehabilitate. Mr. Corey responded that the department was only in charge of facilities installed in the public right-of-way. He said pipe that led from the City facilities to private homes was also responsible for the infiltration of stormwater and there was no ongoing regulatory authority over such pipes. He stated that pipes installed today were no more or less easy to rehabilitate than older pipes. Mr. Corey said, in response to question from Mr. Pap~, the department did have standard location and construction specifications. Mr. Pap~ shared his concern that people could not afford the increase in fees to cover the cost of the projects. He wondered if the MWMC could seek out loans and grants to cover some of the needed work. Ms. Smith responded that there was little federal money available, although the MWMC had secured a small amount of United Front money for a minor project. She related that the commission had just approved the rate increase for the next year. In evaluating a range of options between a 12.5 and 38 percent increase, the commission had opted to increase the fee by 24 percent. She thought the combination of phasing, wherein all projects were pushed out until the very last minute, and the commission setting itself in a good position in the bond market, would benefit the rate-payers. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Smith said there was not a typical increase for a business customer, but the percentage of the increase would be the same as that for the residential customers. Mr. Poling commented that 20 years without doing an update on a facility such as this was ~'just asking for trouble." He related that the members of the MWMC had struggled to arrive at the proposed improvements and fee increases. He expressed appreciation for the work the staff of the MWMC had done. He predicted the dollar amount would be the only stumbling block. B. WORK SESSION: Proposed Modifications to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Regional Wastewater System Development Charge Methodology and Rates Mr. Taylor stated that a public hearing on the modifications was scheduled for June 14 and it was scheduled for council action on June 28. Fred McVey, Data Services Manager for the Public Works Department, explained that the council would be presented two resolutions for action, one that would adopt the proposed SDC methodology forwarded to the council by the MWMC, and the other to adopt the SDC rates that would result from the application of the methodology to the Facility Plan and 20-Year Project List. Mr. McVey provided a brief overview of the attachment entitled Systems Development Charge Method- ologies included in the agenda item summary (ALS). He averred that the work of the consultants, legal counsel, and the commission contributed to the development of a very solid defensible methodology that complied with all statutory requirements and sufficiently addressed issues of equity. With the aid of a MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 3 Work Session flipchart, he discussed Fee Structure Development, Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis, Improvement Cost Basis, and Methodology. Ms. Bettman solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly believed in the need for SDCs. He opined that the increase did not seem out of line given the magnitude of capital improvements that were required, but having read the methodology, he found it difficult to decipher. He asked how it could be made more comprehensible. He wondered if there were other jurisdictions whose wastewater SDCs looked like this. Mr. McVey said the methodology was complex primarily because different elements of capacity in the system were being considered. He thought it would be difficult to accomplish what was needed with a simple methodology, but a more complex methodology, though more difficult to fathom, provided more equity. Mr. McVey asked Debbie Galardi, a consultant in the development of the methodology, to speak to the topic. Ms. Galardi agreed the methodology was complex, but noted that other cities had similar levels of complexity. She cited the City of Albany, which had SDCs that considered flow valves. She averred it was complicated, in part, to provide more equity. Mr. Kelly requested more material on the methodology prior to the public hearing as he would not be able to vote on something he did not completely understand. He felt the work should be readily comprehensible for the people who would be charged the SDCs. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Smith stated that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion System (NPDES) permit had to be renewed quinquennially and would next expire in 2007. Mr. Pap6 thought additional requirements could be placed on the system due to a need for greater capacity and wondered if the SDC methodology was designed with this in mind. Mr. Noeson replied that, to the best ability of the MWMC, in developing the facilities plan, the regulatory assessment had been projected through the 20-year study period to anticipate as much as possible what the regulatory requirements could be. Mr. Pap6 asked if it was thought that the regulations could become more stringent. Mr. Noeson did not foresee this happening. Ms. Bettman asked, and Mr. McVey affirmed, that it was assumed that the mass limits would stay the same. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that slower population growth than projected could cause a shortfall in available funds from SDCs and would affect the project list. She though the numbers for installation of water infrastructure projected by EWEB were lower and possibly more realistic. Ms. Noeson replied that at the same time less population growth brought in less in SDC revenues, it would create less need for expanded capacity and would require less investment, so the absolute accuracy of the population projections was not of great concern. Ms. Bettman asked staff to provide a more in-depth look at how the increase would affect SDCs for commercial customers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly suggested that adoption of the project list first would provide a better gauge by which to create a more accessible methodology. Mr. McVey said the downside of delaying the adjustment was that it would negatively impact the required revenue to build the capacity that was anticipated. He added that staff was trying to meet the commitment to the Lane County Home Builders Association to complete the review and adopt the new SDCs by July 1. Mr. Jewett stated that the actual numbers, based on the facilities plan and the 20-year project list, were available and the commission had adopted both the plan and the list including the cost and the allocations of the cost between the various components. He stressed that those numbers could be applied to the proposed methodology as it stood and would provide real results. Mr. Kelly asked why the numbers, if known, were not embedded in the methodology. Mr. Jewett responded that the statute did not require it. He related that the statute placed the SDCs in a different place from systems methodology. He said there was not consistent treatment of all the terms. Mr. Pap~ also found the methodology difficult to comprehend. He thought Mr. Kelly made a good point, in terms of presentation to the public. He suggested adopting the 20-year plan first and then working on educating the public in regard to the proposed SDC methodology. Ms. Bettman recommended that staff take some example developments and work out what the SDC would be for them on paper in order to clarify the methodology for councilors. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 5 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 24, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Pap6 thanked the Fire Department for its recognition of a University of Oregon student who had rescued two people from a burning house and commended the student for quick action. He announced that he and John Brown were sponsoring a river cleanup through the Delta Rotary Club and the Southtown Rotary Club on June 5, 2004, and invited members to contact him if they were interested in participating. Ms. Bettman commented that she had received several inquiries regarding the proposed expansion of a church at 15th Avenue and Polk Street. She requested a background memorandum on the project describing the application and requirements. She said of particular concern was the removal of trees prior to the application process. She reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) had decided to akemate the meeting venue between Eugene and Springfield and every other meeting would be held in the Bascom- Tykeson Room at the Eugene Public Library. She asked the city manager to check its availability for the June 10, 2004, MPC meeting. Ms. Taylor expressed concern with conditions on Whitbeck Boulevard. She said that the Planning Divisions's decision to permit development had been appealed and the council had denied the appeal. She said that appellants had been assured that the City would provide oversight and there would be no damage; however, there were problems with water runoff, erosion and destruction of the roadway. She asked for a response from the city manager. Ms. Taylor noted that the subject of "big box" stores was being discussed later in the meeting and asked if the current application for the Wal-Mart superstore could be halted on the grounds of environmental effects and transportation. She stated she had not yet received an accounting of expenditures from the parks bond issue. She noted that the City would be receiving $9 million and asked that citizens be consuked about use of the funds for projects such as purchase of the Amazon Creek headwaters. Mr. Kelly asked for a moment to remember Henny Willis of The Register-Guard who died on May 21, 2004. He noted that Mr. Willis was a kind man and an insightful observer of state and local government. Ms. Nathanson arrived at 5:35 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 1 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Housing Standards City Manager Dennis Taylor noted that renewed interest in the issue of housing standards emerged from the work of the West University Neighborhood Task Force and he introduced Marsha Miller of the Planning and Development Department's Building and Permits Services Division to present the subject. Ms. Miller used a slide presentation to highlight components of the agenda packet materials. She provided a brief history of the Eugene Housing Code and listed the policy questions to be considered by the council: · Should the City adopt local housing standards for rental properties? · How would the program be funded? · What would the scope of the housing code be? · What properties would be exempted, if any? Ms. Miller reported that there were between 30,000 and 33,000 total rental units in Eugene with a 5.3 percent vacancy rate. She said there were a number of existing state and local regulations that applied to housing, as well as existing services related to housing. She provided an overview of the City of Corvallis Housing Code and enforcement program, noting that all Oregon State University housing was provided on campus, while that was not the case with the University of Oregon. She compared housing codes from Portland, Medford, Corvallis, and Salem. Ms. Miller described options available to the council, which included directing staff to develop a housing code and program modeled on Corvallis, directing staff not to pursue a housing code in Eugene, or providing direction on alternatives. She said that if the council decided to go forward with a code similar to that of Corvallis, the estimated timeline was 45 to 60 days using existing staff with a cost for attorney fees of between $1,000 and $2,000. She projected an implementation timeline of up to 12 months, staffing requirements of 1.0 FTE (full-time equivalent), and a cost of $240,000 that included start-up expenses. She estimated the cost of an ongoing program with two or three FTEs at $200,000 to $290,000. She also provided the option of a phased implementation that could be initiated as soon as January 2005. Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Miller for the overview and budget projections. He said that the State law related to housing standards was not accessible to many renters because of the lack of a local enforcement mechanism for those who could not afford an attorney. He referred to recent comments by John VanLandingham of the Lane County Law and Advocacy Center that none of the State law's enforcement mechanisms were as good as what was proposed in a Corvallis-style program. He said that using civil penalties instead of municipal courts as the enforcement mechanism made sense. He supported housing standards in the Eugene Code and a local enforcement mechanism that was funded on an ongoing basis by a small fee to owners. Mr. Meisner stated his support for implementation of a housing program covering the four basic habitability standards and liked the use of civil penalties rather than Municipal Court. He also supported a complaint- driven program that was fee-based and hoped that staff would carefully review what fees should be assessed based on program costs. He asked how rooms rented in owner-occupied homes with all residents sharing bathroom and kitchen facilities would be classified. He said another situation was a single-family home that was not owner-occupied and not rented as a single-family home; rather individual rooms were rented and tenants were expected to share kitchen and bath facilities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson expressed some concern with a phased implementation because neither the problem nor the type of units to be covered had been clearly defined. She said the proposed phased approach would address multi-family units first and she was not certain that those presented the greatest problem, which meant assistance for tenants who needed it the most would be postponed until the second phase. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the estimated start-up costs would be funded and asked about exemptions for owner-occupied units, noting that other communities provided that exemption. Referring to Mr. Meisner's example, she said that other programs levied a fee for the unit and an additional small fee per bedroom. She encouraged councilors to read the informative report from a group that studied the issue of a Eugene housing program five years earlier. Given that Eugene had three times the number of rental units, she asked if Eugene's situation was comparable to or worse than Corvallis' situation. Ms. Miller replied that she had no way to assess that and the lack of reliable data presented challenges to the discussion of a housing code. Mr. Pap~ said that he had contacted Corvallis Mayor Helen Berg to discuss the Corvallis program. He said that Mayor Berg was supportive of the program and had estimated that of the 150 complaints processed annually, one-half were resolved once the landlord was contacted about the problem. He said that Corvallis left issues related to rental contract disputes to the court system. He suggested that Small Claims Court could be used to process complaints under State law without the need to hire an attorney. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about the two to three FTEs needed to operate an ongoing program. He said the Corvallis program was handled through the Housing Department and functions were split among staff and not assigned to a specific individual. Ms. Miller said that her understanding, based on discussions with the Corvallis staff person who managed the program, was that three-quarters of his time was spent answering calls, which numbered about 400 per year, resolving complaints and investigating those complaints that could not be resolved in the early stages. Mr. Pap~ suggested that instead of establishing positions to handle the program, complaints could be addressed through contracted private dispute-resolution services, with the City collecting fees and providing oversight. Mr. Poling expressed concern with the start-up costs, establishing two to three FTEs, and classification of owner-occupied units. He asked what types of costs were incurred by landlords and tenants through the existing housing services such as Lane County Law and Advocacy Center and Associated Students of the University of Oregon. Ms. Miller replied that those organizations did not charge for their services. Mr. Poling asked if individual complainants would have to pay costs up front if a suit in Circuit Court was instigated. He asked if arbitration and mediation for contract dispute resolution could be included to avoid filing a court case. Ms. Miller replied that she would research how court costs were covered and that arbitration and mediation services were options that the council could direct staff to explore. Mr. Poling referred to form letters he had received from the Rental Owners Association of Lane County voicing concerns that fees assessed to owners would increase the cost of housing and advocating that the program be funded through fines and assessments, which he felt would leave the program in an unstable funding position. He was in favor of moving the issue forward to the next step but was concerned about how the start-up costs would be funded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman commented that without an enforcement mechanism, there was no way to inventory complaints and problems. She related that her first experience with the issue was during her first campaign for office and she heard from many people during door-to-door visits that housing concerns were a top priority and tenants felt helpless to deal with substandard housing. She said she supported moving the issue forward and the ongoing costs attributable to the two or three FTEs could be minimized by eliminating outreach and education and focusing on enforcement. She expressed concern that mediation was not an appropriate tool to address habitability issues, using the example of defective plumbing that was either repaired or was not. She appreciated the option of a phased implementation approach and noted that the six-month period between the first and second phases was relatively short and should not be an issue. She asked how use of civil penalties for enforcement of nuisance and unsafe building codes was functioning. Ms. Miller said the civil penalty process worked well because it could be done administratively, a penalty could be assessed on a daily basis when a condition continued, and it was a flexible and effective enforcement tool. Ms. Taylor stated she was in favor of moving forward with an ordinance. She said a combination of fees plus fines could support the program and just having the possibility of enforcement would reduce the necessity. She did not feel the State law was adequate because of the enforcement difficulties and she would support a phased approach. Mayor Torrey said he was in favor of not using the Municipal Court for enforcement. He suggested that staff contact the Corvallis program and ask what they would change if drafting an ordinance again; what worked well and what should be done differently. He asked the city manager where he proposed to obtain the start-up funding and said that the program should be initially understaffed and the need for additional staff demonstrated. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the city manager to create draft ordinance language to create housing standards similar to Corvallis addressing habitability needs; the ordinance language to include funding mechanisms and an enforcement mechanism. Language should be brought, along with next steps, to the council in a work session prior to summer break. Mr. Kelly commented it would be desirable to have solid data to support the need for a housing ordinance, but having only anecdotal information did not mean the problem was not real. He said that surveying tenants could be problematic because they feared speaking out in any way that did not protect anonymity. He related that the manager of the Corvallis housing program confirmed Ms. Taylor's point about less need for enforcement once the possibility of enforcement existed. He asked staff to obtain feedback from the Human Rights Commission staff on ordinance language before it advanced to public hearings. Mr. Poling asked if the motion would give staff sufficient time to prepare the ordinance. Ms. Miller said that if the code was modeled on the Corvallis code there would be enough time. Mr. Poling agreed with a phased approach starting with multi-family units because of the time involved in identifying single-family units. He referred to a letter from the chair of the Harlow Neighbors Association reporting that the association had passed a motion on May 19, 2004, supporting the concept of City enforcement for minimum housing standards similar to those proposed by the Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards Coalition. Mr. Pap~ asked if Corvallis used State law in the four areas of habitability. Ms. Miller said that was correct. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pap~ expressed the opinion that State law was sufficient and it was not necessary to attempt to improve upon it. He asked that the draft ordinance language also be reviewed by the Housing Policy Board. He commented that the program would usurp fees from the 90 to 95 percent of landlords who took care of their units and considered habitability to be important and hoped that as the program was ongoing a lower fee per unit and higher enforcement fines would be considered to target those landlords who were the perpetrators. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Pap6's suggestion that the program eventually become a complaint-driven, fine-driven program. He said he would support the motion and appreciated the Mayor's suggestion to contact Corvallis to determine what changes might be recommended. He concurred with Ms. Bettman's remarks that mediation was not an appropriate enforcement tool. He asked if the City could enforce through the courts if civil penalties were not effective in resolving a complaint. Ms. Miller said that currently the City could place liens on properties when civil penalties reached a certain threshold. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the ordinance could grant the City authority to do both an administrative civil penalty, as well as go to Municipal Court. Mr. Meisner asked that such language regarding enforcement authority be included in the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson observed that the motion did not include a request for alternatives for the council to consider regarding exemption. She said there were exemptions that would be appropriate for Eugene, such as educational institutions that provided housing and owner-occupied shared housing. She asked staff to provide more information on the program in East Lansing, Michigan, which offered the opportunity for exemptions by neighborhood. She also asked for information on whether multi-year licenses would make the program simpler and more efficient to administer and reduce costs and fees. Ms. Bettman stated that she would support the motion and thanked the community coalition for their work on the project. Mayor Torrey thanked staff for their work and noted that the council's action would not adopt an ordinance, only request that draft ordinance language be developed. Mr. Kelly said he had suggested a work session before summer break because he did not anticipate a public hearing until the fall and school was back in session. Mr. Taylor said that the schedule and tasks would allow for a work session before summer break, reviews and comments by all appropriate bodies, and conduct of the regular ordinance process in the fall. The motion passed unanimously. C. WORK SESSION: Banning/Controlling Location of"Big Box" Stores Mr. Taylor introduced Planning and Development Executive Director Tom Coyle to outline the issues raised in Background on "Big Box" Retailing provided as Attachment A to the agenda item summary. Mr. Coyle emphasized that the document was a summary of the issues and not a scientific analysis or economic study of the retail market in Eugene. He directed the council's attention to the section of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 5 Work Session document that addressed terminology and stressed the critical need to use consistent language when discussing regulation. He said that the discussion of Wal-Mart referred to a super center, which was traditionally a mass merchandiser that expanded to add food service to its use. He said that a typical Wal- Mart or Target would include 150,000 to 160,000 square feet and the recent application received from Wal- Mart was for the addition of 60,000 square feet to the existing center. He said that summary included a breakdown of public comments received on the Wal-Mart expansion sorted by areas of complaint: competition with local business, wages and business practices, and land use-related issues of traffic and aesthetics. Mr. Coyle pointed out the potential consequences that should be considered if the solution to the issue was a code amendment: · The effect of creating a non-conformity for all retail buildings over 50,000 square feet. · The effect of a size limitation associated with nodal development on a city-wide application. · An absence of competition for uses and development in current in place as a result of a size limita- tion. · The precluding of redevelopment of existing sites if there is a size limitation. · The relationship of a square footage limitation to the use of internal retail space. Mr. Coyle concluded his remarks with the comment that staff recommended no action unless there were compelling reasons why a size limitation would respond to the concerns associated with ;;big box" retailing. Ms. Taylor expressed her disappointment that information was not provided about ordinances that existed in other cities relating to ;;big box" retail. She said her intent in raising the issue was to protect local business, local workers, and downtown and to address issues such as transportation. She said a moratorium on ;;big box" stores was a starting point while the City considered options such as imposing conditions relating to environment, transportation, living wage, local ownership and decision-makers, and the consequences of abandoning a facility. She said the present application would have negative effects on the transportation infrastructure and wetlands and hoped it could be stopped while the council examined regulation options. Mr. Kelly said that while the problem had land use aspects, it was ultimately an economic development policy and economic health issue. He stated that it was necessary to develop mechanisms for what type of economic development would provide the most net positive gain to the community and noted that studies had identified a net negative effect on local businesses of many ;;big box" stores; particularly the percent of dollars spent that left the community immediately. He said other issues were the impact on the local labor pool, public subsidies for employees, and efficient or inefficient use of commercial land. He commented that many other communities had either banned or restricted ;;big box" retail. He did not think that a square footage limitation was the only solution and gave as examples regulations that applied only to chains or formula business and an impact analysis review of certain types of businesses. Mr. Meisner said that ultimately residents made the difference by where they shopped and agreed that the council needed to address the issue. He asked for additional information on how other communities had approached the problem as well as a legal analysis of how those approaches and the ones discussed by the council would work under Oregon law and judicial system. He said the issue was not one of land use and size. Mr. Pap6 remarked that land use and aesthetics issues should be separated from business operational issues, which were much more complex. He expressed concern with the idea of the City trying to manipulate the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 6 Work Session marketplace and agreed with Mr. Meisner that shoppers would ultimately make the decision. He said that if wages, benefits, and union labor were the issues, they were more appropriately addressed at the State or national level instead of by the City of Eugene. Ms. Nathanson agreed that the issue was bigger than Eugene and said that in studies of the impact of large retail stores it appeared a major factor was some cities' pursuit of retail because they were dependent on sales tax revenue and that created difficulties in assessing whether the impact was positive or negative. She said that was not an issue for Eugene and wondered whether preventing or limiting large-volume retailers in Eugene would result in people driving farther to shop at that retailer in a neighboring community. She was dubious that restrictions would accomplish what was intended, either to influence the ownership of businesses or reverse the trend of consumerism. Ms. Solomon concurred with comments from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Nathanson, particularly about people voting with their pocketbooks. She stated she was a Wal-Mart shopper and had a right to choose and shop for the lowest prices, including going to Wal-Mart, and it was not the role of the council to take those choices away from citizens. Referring to earlier comments about %ig box" stores causing blight, she noted that the Wal-Mart/Target complex on West 11th Avenue had generated a number of additional local commercial and retail services in the vicinity. Ms. Bettman said that there were two distinct and overlapping issues: the economic security and develop- ment issue and the land use and growth issue. She said that over-commercialization did impact local businesses. She indicated that the City's policies relating to densification and infill also applied to businesses with respect to commercial property and parking. She stated that the City's efforts to attract jobs should include a look at the type of development that actually reduced jobs and wages. She said that public safety was impacted by a rise in shoplifting-related calls attributed to "big box" stores and when land was used for commercial development that included a large amount of surface parking, it was taken out of the inventory but not taxed in a way that created optimum revenue. Referring to the issue of choice, Ms. Bettman said that a formula chain entity represented a false economy because of the hidden costs related to subsidies. She said when a large regional attractor was created at the edge of the city limits, the municipality paid for costs such as transportation, public safety, and planning and subsidized the low-wage jobs through social services. Mayor Torrey asked if the real reason was for the proposed restrictions was the low wage and benefits jobs and if Wal-Mart agreed to pay a wage acceptable to the council, would objections to the expansion be dropped. He questioned whether the same rules would be applied to local businesses and if not, there would be legal ramifications. He said he did not believe that the Wal-Mart application already submitted could be stopped and if there were potential negative impacts to transportation or wetlands, residents could file legal challenges. He said preventing "big box" retail development in the community would simply result in that development being located at the edge of the urban growth boundary (UGB) north of Eugene along Highway 99 and Eugene would still have to deal with transportation impacts. He said he was not opposed to a council decision to address the issue as an ordinance, but was opposed to action that would stop the current process, such as a moratorium, and would veto such action. Ms. Taylor commented that "big box" retail sometimes caused the loss of other jobs, requiring a subsidy of employees through social services. She said that efforts to improve downtown were affected by what happened on the edge of town. She requested a moratorium to allow the council time to think about options. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the city manager to bring back to the City Council as quickly as State statutes allow an ordinance to impose a moratorium on accepting or processing applications for retail establishments in ex- cess of 50,000 square feet. Ms. Taylor said her purpose was to give the council time to think and discuss possibilities and the reasons were to protect local jobs, local businesses, and downtown and to encourage businesses that kept money in the community rather than businesses that caused more social service expenditures. Mr. Kelly remarked that he would support the motion. He pointed out that a moratorium would not stop the current Wal-Mart application as the law that applied was the law in effect the day the application was submitted; its purpose was to prevent for a short period a potential mistake that could cost the community economically and environmentally for 20 or 30 years while the alternatives were considered. He said the reasons were threefold: 1) economic development and how the local economy was supported; 2) wage and benefits issues; and 3) land use issues. He said that it might not be legally possible to distinguish between national and local ownership, but other municipalities had been able to distinguish by using formula business or chain business. He noted that other cities had agreed that preventing, limiting, or reviewing further ;;big box" development was valuable, just as anti-trust laws existed to provide additional regulation of businesses with dominant market power. Mr. Meisner commented that he had supported the motion at the previous meeting, but was not going to support it currently because the moratorium was based solely on square footage in excess of 50,000 square feet and did not give notice to the city manager to prepare anything on any other grounds. Ms. Bettman acknowledged that the moratorium was problematic and restrictive, but when the land use code was updated there was not the political will to address issues related to %ig box" retail. She agreed with the Mayor's comments regarding the many issues involved and said if the council wanted to fulfill its underlying value of protecting local businesses and jobs and providing living wage jobs with benefits, that's what it should be negotiating. She said it was important to see how chain stores functioned in and impacted the community and she wanted the community to have a positive influence on the matter. She stated she would support the motion because it would expedite the council's ability to look at the issue and suggested referring it to the Mayor's Economic Development Committee for recommendations on criteria. Ms. Nathanson stated she would not support a moratorium because it could prevent the expansion of local businesses as well as %ig box" retail, which was the wrong message to send when the City was trying to encourage economic recovery. She expressed concern about characterization of ~those jobs" and said economic development should encourage manufacturing, not retail. She said that not all %ig box" stores paid the same wage and had the same benefit structure and asked how those compared to the communities' very small retailer and food service employers. She wondered whether the concerns were about wages, ownership, or square footage and transportation and said too many things were being addressed with the wrong solution. Mr. Pap~ said that before a decision was made, more specific information on the actual impact of %ig box" stores on the local should be obtained. He said that it was important to encourage the growth of existing smaller businesses but he was not a protectionist and did not think they should be protected from competi- tion. He said that minimum wage jobs offered employment opportunities to young people and students. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 8 Work Session stated he would not support the motion and requested more information that was empirically-based, not attitudinally-based. Mayor Torrey said that a survey conducted of local businesses last year regarding perceptions of the business climate in Eugene listed the top four issues as: · Simplify the permit process and dealings · Relax, revise local government regulations · Adopt pro-business policies · Employ economic development strategies Mayor Torrey said that implementing a moratorium without providing an opportunity for a legitimate process that included a work session and public hearing was wrong and referred to previous action on housing standards as the appropriate approach. He observed that the pressure appeared to be to stop Wal- Mart and not pressure to stop 50,000 square foot buildings. Mr. Kelly explained that Ms. Taylor's motion did direct the city manager to bring back an ordinance to impose a moratorium and the ordinance would be subject to the usual public input and public hearing process, which was the same approach the council had taken with housing standards. Mr. Kelly proposed a friendly amendment to add the language %taff should begin investigation of possible long-term techniques related to economic issues, such as impact analysis or formula business regulation, used in other cities." Ms. Taylor accepted the amendment as the maker of the motion. Ms. Bettman accepted the motion as the second. Continuing, Mr. Kelly said a moratorium was a blunt, short-term and temporary solution that allowed time for a more permanent solution to be crafted. He expressed discomfort with quoting the business climate survey because of the 15 percent response rate. Ms. Taylor remarked that her motion was the same as the one she had made at a previous meeting and was prepared by Mr. Klein. She said all the moratorium did was to provide the council time to think, and if it was possible to stop the current application, she would want to do that. Ms. Nathanson declared that if the issue was fundamentally about economic development and concern for local business, then the council should ask the Mayor's Economic Development Committee to discuss ways to support local businesses, the possible impacts and unintended consequences. Ms. Bettman said that she had raised aspects of the issue during economic development and land use discussions and was responsible for the 50,000 square foot limitation in nodes and the 35,000 square foot limitation of a footprint. She said whether the motion passed or failed, it was her intent to move to ask the Mayor's Economic Development Committee to consider not just the economic development issues embedded in %ig box" chain store development, but consider the land use issues as well with respect to efficient use of land within the UGB and impacts on transportation, tax base, and service provision. She said that neighboring communities also had small businesses to protect and grow. Mr. Meisner thanked Mr. Kelly for his amendment to the motion and pointed out that the motion did direct staff to develop an ordinance for a moratorium on accepting or processing application for retail establish- MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 9 Work Session ments in excess of 50,000 square feet. He asked to what extent such a moratorium, if enacted, would restrict the council or tie its hands during the moratorium period. Mr. Klein responded that the moratorium would not tie the council's hand in any way; it would tie the Planning and Development Department's hands with respect to accepting applications for a store proposed for more than 50,000 square feet. Mr. Meisner asked if work on a permanent ordinance would need to be related to the problem identified in the moratorium. Mr. Klein replied that the moratorium ordinance, when it returned to the council, would have to identify the need and specify that the City was working on responding to the need. Mr. Meisner asked whether size limitation based on square footage could be discarded in favor of other factors if it was determined to be the wrong solution. Mr. Klein replied that it could be discarded during deliberations that occur after passing the moratorium. Mayor Torrey inquired whether a store that was 48,000 square feet would become non-conforming if it was remodeled to 55,000 square feet. Mr. Coyle said that level of specificity would have to be called out in the ordinance and under a permanent ordinance the store would be rendered non-conforming in that scenario. He noted that some local grocery stores were engaged in expansions similar to the hypothetical figures. Mayor Torrey requested that if the motion passed, the moratorium ordinance contain all of the implications, positive and negative, so the public would be aware of the consequences. Mr. Coyle raised the point that a supercenter of Wal-Mart's size would require a piece of property 18 to 20 acres and zoned commercially and he was not aware that such a parcel existed. He said the net effect of a moratorium would be focused on redevelopment of existing sites and the project at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street would be stopped. Mr. Taylor commented that under Oregon law special notice was required to the Land Conservation and Development Department as well as a specific ordinance outlining the rationale for the moratorium in specific detail. Mr. Klein added that the ordinance would contain findings that responded to the require- ments of State law, which included need and adverse effects, and the moratorium would be time-limited to four or six months. Mr. Pap~ asked if the moratorium would affect expansion of a manufacturer that also had retail in its facility. Mr. Klein said the effect would depend on the definition of %ig box" retail. The amended motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the city manager to include in the charge of the Mayor's Economic Development Committee the specific tasks of identifying the economic and land use transportation impacts of chain or volume retailers in excess of 50,000 square feet and providing recommendations and crite- ria to mitigate the impact to the council. Mayor Torrey asked about the committee's current status. Mr. Coyle replied that the committee had held its fourth meeting and was running somewhat behind schedule. He said the scope of the analysis requested in Ms. Bettman's motion was complex and would require significant resources to compile the data necessary for the committee to make an objective assessment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman commented that the committee was already examining overlapping issues such as the land inventory and jobs and a significant amount of research on the %ig box" issue had been done in other communities. She hoped that the committee would explore the usefulness of a community benefits agreement that gave the City the ability to regulate development so it was consistent with community standards. Mr. Kelly said the council did not need to craft a solution immediately and the committee was an appropriate body to assume the task. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Meisner requested permission to change his vote to aye on Ms. Taylor's amended motion relating to the moratorium. There were no objections. The vote on the motion was tied. Mayor Torrey broke the tie by voting nay. The motion failed, 5:4; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner voting in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 11 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall May 24, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Ms. Solomon was excused for the first part of the meeting. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, shared photographs of improvements he believed were needed in downtown Eugene and noted he had provided copies of the photographs and a list of the members of Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DE1). He called for improvements in downtown and for DE1 to move to the Eugene Hilton Hotel. Mr. Miller said the City of Corvallis compiled a better directory of restaurants than Eugene. He thought the Eugene Chamber of Commerce ought to model theirs after it. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association, wished to address Consent Calendar Item (C). She averred that the local jurisdictions had become "lazy" about wastewater projects as there was an excellent Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) staff and the MWMC itself. She fek that, because there had been no large or controversial projects over the years, the budget and the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list had come before the council and had been approved as proposed. She pointed out that the council was now considering $108 million in projects and thought the public should be involved, given it was such a large amount. She alleged that only one public hearing had been held and it had been held at 7:30 a.m. on a Thursday. She noted that wastewater treatment technology had evolved considerably since the last facility had been constructed and stressed the importance of allowing the community to carefully consider what sort of project would best serve it. Dennis Casady, P.O. Box 5028, did not believe the City of Eugene needed to create another bureaucracy to enforce the Tenant/Landlord law. He opined that current law included adequate housing standards and the tenant had mechanisms to ensure compliance, such as withholding rent or paying for something to be fixed and then deducting it from rent. He said it was spelled out in ORS 90.365. He noted the fear some tenants have of being evicted as a result of taking a landlord to court. He alleged it was unfounded as tenants were protected and had recourse in the event of unlawful eviction. He added that any cost a new enforcement mechanism would incur would be passed on to the tenant. City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 1 Regular Meeting Victoria Whitman, 1908 Oak Street, supported restoring Willamette Street to two-way traffic from 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue. She related that parking and traffic patterns impacted Oak Street and two-way traffic on Willamette Street would improve livability on Oak Street. She said noise was a large factor and her quality of life would be improved by this change. John Tronrude, 1408 Willamette Street, stated that he was president of the Rental Owners Association of Lane County. He said he had been a property manager for 30 years in the community. He felt the largest problem with the potential changes in housing standards enforcement was that they duplicated what was already in place. He believed that, should further enforcement truly be needed, it should be paid for by fines and not by a fee-per-rental-unit basis. He commented that the rental market was soft and getting a good tenant was desirable. Thus, he averred that supply and demand worked well to ensure that landlords provided good housing. He underscored that a tenant with a habitability issue need only to withhold rent and could not justifiably be evicted as a result of this action. Pam Perryman, 3025 Neslo Lane, said she owned rental property at 33 East 20th Avenue. She supported opening Willamette Street from 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue as it would substantially reduce noise. She asked the council not to place more value on the quality of life of a homeowner than the quality of life of a renter. She stated that leaving the portion between 18th Avenue and 20th Avenue one-way would create more havoc and would ultimately be changed. She thought changing it later would cost the City more money. Wayne Gadde, 1945 Oak Street, spoke in support of opening Willamette Street to two-way traffic as well. He related that he had his house appraised and the value had been reduced due to the heavy traffic load. He thought keeping only two blocks regulated as a one-way street was ~absurd." He felt this would inconven- ience far more people than the few who had united to request the two-block stretch of Willamette Street between 18th Avenue and 20th Avenue be left one-way. Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, related that he had heard on the radio earlier in the day that there were 7,000 vacant Walmart Stores in the country at present because the space was too small to be made larger and too large for anyone else to want to purchase them. He expressed concern that such stores add to the blight in the downtown area, which he perceived to be only just rising from its blighted state. Mr. Cassidy shared that he had been a landlord for nine years. He stated that rents were not determined by anything but the marketplace. He would not mind paying 75 cents per month per unit to help improve the City. He said improving rentals helped the community. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, said he had attended a Civic Center Visioning workshop at which they chose an option to recommend. He felt there was not enough public input and the City had not worked hard enough to solicit such input. He thought placing the Civic Center on the November ballot would be wrong. He expressed disappointment that when speaking about partnerships, no partners had money to partner with. He felt the site selection involved in construction of a new police facility was ~pulling the wool over the eyes" of the public, who had voted against such a structure twice. Bob Suess, P.O. Box 456, Springfield, explained that he and his family had built and operated rental units in the area since 1958. He agreed that good landlords were needed, but thought landlords were already being hit with ~a lot of fees." He averred more laws would not make landlords more responsible to their renters. He thought that more regulation would %hase away good landlords." He suggested more education on standards was in order, though he admitted that some could not be educated. City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren Street, conveyed his displeasure at the recent election results. He did not support the new mayoral candidate and hoped a write-in candidate would win in November. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and called on the council for comments. Councilor Kelly expressed appreciation for the testimony of residents of the Oak Street area regarding changes to traffic flow on Willamette Street. He stated that a study was being recommended so that a solution could be crafted that weighed the topography and neighborhood needs. Councilor Poling asked if it would be possible to place a sunset on a housing standard enforcement mechanism so that it would be required to be brought back for evaluation. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that the council could direct staff to add such language when the draft ordinance was brought back in a work session and prior to the public hearing on it. Councilor Papd stressed that the council had only begun the process of deciding how and whether to proceed with housing standards enforcement. Councilor Bettman said the decision to keep the traffic flow one-way south of 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue was due to concerns regarding on-street parking and cut-through traffic. She opined that the best mobility in an urban core was provided by two-way streets. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - March 31, Work Session - April 7, 2004, Process Session - April 12, 2004, Work Session - April 14, 2004, Work Session - April 21, 2004, Work Session - April 28, 2004 Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission FY04-05 Re- gional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program D. Initiation of Land Use Code Amendment: To Create a Special Area Zone for the Kaufman House (Kaufman Senior Center) Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. Councilor Kelly submitted one correction to the minutes via email. Mayor Torrey deemed it, without objection, approved. Councilor Pap6 pulled Item C. City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman noted her submission of corrections to the minutes. Mayor Torrey deemed them accepted as submitted. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, City Manager Dennis Taylor said the MWMC budget before the council was only for FY04-05. Councilor Pap~ asked how much of the projected $108 million was included in the CIP for FY04-05. Speaking on behalf of the MWMC, Susie Smith responded that the CIP for the budget before the council was projected to cost $18 million and consisted of both new projects and those carried over from the previous year. Councilor Pap~ expressed concern regarding the timing of the public hearing on the CIP and budget. Ms. Smith said the MWMC met every third Thursday of the month at 7:30 a.m. She explained that the commission tried to have public hearings at different times in the day and had not experienced an increase in public participation. She added that the MWMC held two public hearings on the proposed CIP and budget and had noticed them as per public meeting law. She noted that the MWMC had an interested parties list as well, consisting of several hundred people. Councilor Pap~ asked if there was a website. Ms. Smith replied that there was, but it had not been updated recently, as the person who did so was no longer working for them. Ms. Smith stated, in response to a question from Councilor Poling, that the Lane County Board of Commissioners reviewed the facilities plan only, but the City of Springfield reviewed both the CIP and the systems development charges (SDCs). Springfield and Lane County were scheduled to review the budget in June. Councilor Poling noted that the planning commissions for the jurisdictions were slated to discuss this and asked what the purpose for this was. Ms. Smith clarified that the planning commissions were reviewing proposed amendments to the MetroPlan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan to update the information pertaining to wastewater facilities. She said up to this point, wastewater facilities were defined as pipes 24 inches and larger and pump stations. Upon review of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the administrative years, it had been determined that facilities such as the treatment plant, the bio-cycle farm, and the bio-solids facility should be included. Councilor Poling asked how much of the $18 million in the CIP was being discussed by planning commis- sions. Ms. Smith replied that the budget was not being discussed. Councilor Poling asked if the Board of Commissioners would provide opportunities for public comment. Ms. Smith responded that the board had not chosen to provide such an opportunity in the past. Councilor Kelly commented that he was prepared to support the motion because it only took into considera- tion the one-year plan and not the 20-year project list. He noted that the City of Springfield had voted unanimously to approve the 24-percent increase in user fees to help fund the CIP. Councilor Meisner said he could neither support nor oppose the motion because he felt the public had not had adequate opportunity to choose to be involved as the noticing was too obtuse. City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman supported the motion. She indicated she had a problem with the draft budget for the 20- year plan; however, in that the resources from SDCs amounted to $850,000 in FY03-04 and $1 million in FY04-05, it did not adequately cover the $108 million projected cost of the CIP. Councilor Papd, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to postpone the ac- tion on this item to the meeting scheduled for June 14. Councilor Pap~ asked for a memorandum through the City Manager from the MWMC to specifically describe what was planned and how the MWMC intended to educate the public as to plans for the $108 million project list and rate changes. Councilor Bettman hoped part of the outreach and education would be on how much ratepayers paid. She alleged that ratepayers were subsidizing new development. Councilor Kelly agreed with comments made about public outreach. He urged the MWMC to ramp up public outreach regarding the 20-year plan. He would not, however, support the motion as he opposed holding the one-year budget in "limbo." Councilor Meisner indicated he hoped the MWMC would undertake more "active plain-English" presenta- tions in order to educate and inform the public. He suggested a simple enclosure in utility bills as a means to disseminate information. Mayor Torrey said he was inclined to vote to postpone action on this for a month. He felt traction was needed with the public and the MWMC did not have it at this time. He opined it was in the best interest of the MWMC to let the public know what was being done and why, in order to avoid their consternation at what could be perceived as yet one more cost increase among many. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie: 4:4; Councilors Pap~, Meisner, Solomon, and Poling voting for; Councilors Nathanson, Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting against. The Mayor voted for the motion and the motion passed. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Apportionment of Assessments for Alley Improvements; Amending Section 7.175 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Coun- cil adopt Council Bill 4874, and ordinance concerning alley assessments. Councilor Bettman commented that, when voted upon previously, she had presented a motion to amend to make the assessments 100-percent voluntary. She related that the amendment had failed and she would continue to oppose the ordinance without such a clause. She called the assessments inequitable. Councilor Taylor concurred with Councilor Bettman. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; Councilors Taylor and Bettman vot- ing in opposition. City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Downtown Area; and Proposed Amendments to Sections 3.344, 4.871, and 4.872 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4872, an ordinance concerning the downtown area. Councilor Solomon was excused from the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Councilor Bettman felt the curfew in the downtown area was too restrictive. She felt the Broadway Plaza was not unlike a city park and should have similar restrictions as other parks had. Councilor Taylor commented that there should no be a curfew at all. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the mo- tion by striking language having to do with a curfew, section 4.8722 (j) of the Ordinance. Councilor Kelly remarked that the City was trying to create a livelier downtown. He averred there was a distinction between a city park and a town square and, as such, the Broadway Plaza merited different treatment than a park. Councilor Taylor opposed placing a curfew in the downtown area. She said the curfew ran counter to the City's aspiration to have a lively downtown 24 hours per day. She added she felt the entire downtown ordinance was unnecessary; something that was against the law downtown should be against the law everywhere in the City. Councilor Meisner was inclined to support the amendment. He reiterated that the City's goal was to have a lively downtown area 24 hours per day. He thought safety concerns on the Broadway Plaza could be addressed by augmenting the lighting. He asked Police Chief Bob Lehner if a lack of curfew would pose problems to the Eugene Police Department (EPD). Chief Lehner responded that the EPD would do what it needed to do with downtown safety, but said it was a matter of responsiveness and watchfulness. He thought it would provide comfort to have the Broadway Plaza governed in the same manner as the rest of the community. Roll call vote; the amendment passed, 5:2; Councilors Bettman and Papd voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting a New Central Area Transportation Study as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4369 and the Central Eugene parking and Traffic Circulation Plan Adopted Therein; Adding Section 9.9515 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the changes reflected in Attachment A, modifying the Draft June 2003 Central Area Transportation Study. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend imple- mentation strategy 1.1 (g) to read as follows: "Willamette Street from 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue; prior to any con- version of this segment additional study and analysis shall be per- formed and a recommendation and project proposal brought back to the council for a public hearing and approval." Councilor Bettman said the only change her amendment would implement was that it would add that after analysis, scoping, and outreach to neighbors, it would come back before the council. She supported moving forward with the project, but with the caveat that it should be done with careful consideration of the businesses that would be negatively impacted by loss of parking and the surrounding neighborhoods that have noise and traffic issues. Councilor Kelly concurred. He felt public input had indicated that the issue had risen to a level of intensity that it deserved second consideration. Councilor Pap~ supported the amendment. While he said he was sympathetic to members of the public who testified during the Public Forum, he averred that traffic flow on the streets in question had been a fixture for 30 years and the people who bought or rented property in that area ~knew what they were getting into." He hoped to look at the changes in a broader context. Councilor Pap~ asked the City Manager if there had been any further discussion with School District 4J in regard to purchasing a portion of the Civic Stadium site to augment Willamette Street. Mr. Taylor responded that he had not spoken to representatives of the school district. Councilor Meisner expressed concern that the amendment could slow the implementation of the plan, though he was inclined to support it. He averred that staff, without a deadline, could take a long time to conduct the study. Councilor Taylor conveyed her support for the motion. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to modify the language in Policy 1 so that it would read: ~Promote the development of a transportation system within the down- town area that supports the goals of the Downtown Plan, enhances the livability of downtown, preserves the livability and economic vitality of areas within and directly adjacent to the CATS boundary, and provides for the safe and efficient movement of motor vehicles, pedes- trians, bicycles, and transit vehicles (see Appendix A, Map 2 for pro- posed street system improvements)." City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said she wished to add this language because she had heard from the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood and the Friendly Neighborhood that they wanted consideration for the impacts that the changes could cause to their neighborhoods. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4859, an ordinance adopting a new Central Area Transportation Study. City Attorney Glenn Klein requested the maker of the motion add ~including an amended Exhibit B reflecting the changes adopted by the council in the prior motion." Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, so moved. Mr. Klein asked Councilor Bettman to make the same motion for Policy 1 so that the one just made would read as follows: ~I move to amend Section 4, Section 9.9515 (1)(a), Policy 1 to add the language preserves the livability and economic vitality of areas within and directly adjacent to the CATS boundary after the ~livability of downtown' in the first sentence." Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, so moved. Councilor Taylor expressed her reservations regarding the highway and hoped changes to the highway would be removed at a later point. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0. Roll call vote; the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare the Central Area Transportation Study for final publi- cation. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) City Council -- May 24, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 26, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(i) the City Council Met in Executive Session to Discuss the City Manager Performance Evaluation B. WORK SESSION: City Manager Performance Evaluation Mayor Torrey called the work session of the City Council to order at 12:47 p.m. Ms. Bettman said City Manager Dennis Taylor had, overall, done a commendable job. She found it hard to believe he had only been with the City of Eugene for a year. She felt he had engendered the faith and trust of the community. She stated that she included specific issues and areas for improvement in her written evaluation. Ms. Bettman remarked that the City Manager had done well in helping to bring Eugene Police Department (EPD) Chief Bob Lelmer on board. She declared him to be right for the community. She hoped that, as executive positions opened up, other people of the quality of Chief Lelmer would be hired. With regard to council issues, Ms. Bettman felt that advocating for the community should be of utmost importance, as opposed to maintaining the status quo. Ms. Taylor affirmed that the City Manager had adapted well. She related that she enjoyed seeing Mr. Taylor at the Farmers Market on Saturdays. She acknowledged it was a difficult job, with nine bosses and many others to satisfy. She said she had, in her evaluation, given a high rating for his community involvement. She suggested Mr. Taylor talk individually with councilors about their job performance evaluations of him. Mr. Taylor indicated he planned to do so. Ms. Taylor reiterated her suggestion that there be running evaluations from every meeting in order to assess them. Ms. Taylor expressed concern regarding a lack of information and a perceived unwillingness on the part of staff to provide complete information. She related that at times she received feedback from a citizen MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 2004 Page 1 Work Session regarding an issue, which she would pass on to staff, and then she would not hear anything more on it. She felt she needed to be kept in the loop in order to be responsive to her constituents. Mr. Kelly noted that his written comments provided more detailed feedback. He called the City Manager a ;;quick study" and expressed appreciation for his enthusiasm. He thought Mr. Taylor's community and citizen relationships were outstanding and that he had done a fine job of reaching out. Mr. Kelly opined the City Manager had been part of a shift toward more positive fiscal management. He hoped Mr. Taylor could help the council and community to engage in efforts to become more sustainable. Regarding Mayor and council support, Mr. Kelly thought there had been too many surprises and a lack of timely information. Ms. Nathanson commended Mr. Taylor for his ability to keep the organization moving ahead and working hard in a positive manner. She applauded him for this. She acknowledged the council, community, and organization asked much of him and he had risen to the challenge in a remarkable manner. Ms. Nathanson remarked that the City continued to show signs it was experiencing growing pains and that the feeling that there was a lack of access to information grew from this. She attributed this to the City Manager/Council structure of government, in that the councilors were part-time and not always present to be more aware of issues as they arose. Ms. Nathanson said Mr. Taylor projected enthusiasm, sincerity, and competence. She commented that he was smart and very capable of doing the job for which he was hired. Mr. Pap6 wished to emphasize the comment Mr. Kelly had made in which he called Mr. Taylor a ;;quick study." He commended the City Manager's energy in reaching out to both the community and the City organization. He noted there were almost no negative comments in the reviews submitted by employees. He related that the City of Billings, Montana had ;;raved" about Mr. Taylor. He believed that Mr. Taylor would improve in any areas in which it was suggested some improvement was needed. Ms. Solomon left the meeting at 1 p.m. Mr. Pap~ applauded the work the City Manager had done to help the council function more fluidly. He said the process sessions and consultant work had made the council a better body. Mr. Meisner stated that the City Manager had been exactly what he had expected from his conversations with residents of Billings. He said Mr. Taylor had the talent, the skills, the professionalism, and the ethics that had been sought in the city manager position. He commented that any qualms he had expressed in his individual evaluation were not about Mr. Taylor per se, but were about pieces of the organization. He hoped that Mr. Taylor's leadership skills would trickle down into the organization. Mr. Meisner commended the City Manager for his ability to say that things could be done or could be done differently, while the organization was not as open to movement. He underscored the importance of meeting the expectations of the public and not lowering those expectations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 2004 Page 2 Work Session In closing, Mr. Meisner thanked Mr. Taylor for coming to Eugene and suggested he should stay ~a long time." Mr. Poling also thanked Mr. Taylor for coming to Eugene. He said he had been impressed by how Mr. Taylor had come into the community and taken on tough issues. He noted the first ~night of reading" on the job was the budget. He felt he had done a good job of ~thinking outside of the box" in the most recent budget deliberations. Mr. Poling thought the one-on-one meetings had been beneficial and was impressed by how the City Manager had found the time. Mr. Poling advised the City Manager to set expectations of when information requested by councilors would be provided. He noted the public had, in the past, a perception that the City government was inaccessible, but this seemed to be dissipating somewhat. He attributed this to Mr. Taylor's community outreach. Mayor Torrey stated that the success of City Manager/Council government was largely dependent on the job that Mr. Taylor was hired to do. He thought Mr. Taylor had done a ~very good job." He believed the challenge would continue to be the implementation of council policy. He conveyed the council expectation that the City Manager would be there with his expertise to provide guidance in this policy-making. He commented that it would be ~foolish" not to ask Mr. Taylor for input on decisions. He said the council could say no to a recommendation from the City Manager, but he should never hesitate to share his recommendations. Mayor Torrey complimented Mr. Taylor on his ability to take advantage of the strengths of the people around him, particularly the work he had done with Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson. He called it the strength of a leader to take advantage of the strengths of others. He commended Mr. Taylor for hiring Chief Bob Lehner. He advised him to listen to his instincts and to make decisions based on his wealth of experience and expertise. He concluded by saying that he was confident the City was in good hands. Mr. Taylor thanked the Mayor. He called his year of service as City Manager in Eugene the ~most rewarding year" of his professional life. He felt embraced by the community and by the organization. He said it was an honor to be the City Manager and had been everything he had expected and more. He commented that he had underestimated how hard it would be to learn all that it took to be manager of Eugene. He had been challenged to ~get up to speed" with the council, the organization, and the needs of the community. He related that he had tried to portion his work so that one-third of it went to each and that he had reached some proficiency so that he could meet expectations in the area of communication. He thought he would be better able to provide information in a timely fashion in the future as a result. Mr. Taylor remarked that he had not received such a thorough evaluation in his professional career. He commended Lauren Chouinard, executive director of the Human Risk and Resources Services, for designing and conducting the evaluation. Mr. Taylor expressed appreciation for the council's willingness to have process sessions and goal-setting sessions. He said the council and executive management had worked hard to develop goals, values, and principles. He averred they were working hard to be a shared responsibility team. He felt communication could be improved both inside and outside of the organization and said he would take this on as a challenge. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 2004 Page 3 Work Session He said productivity had been improved and the focus on customer service had helped. In conclusion, he looked forward to a long relationship with the community of Eugene. Mayor Torrey proposed the council president, vice president, and himself have a brief meeting about the compensation adjustment and return on June 9 for an official motion. The council indicated it was amenable to this. Mr. Kelly requested a second round. Mayor Torrey recognized him. Mr. Kelly repeated his concern regarding the timely dissemination of necessary information. He stated, in regard to executive management partnership, that he would rather see the City Manager control the abuses in use of staff time than to restrict access to staff. He felt the informal arrangement that existed previously had worked well. Mr. Kelly opined that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) was reactive instead of proactive. He wanted management to work to get the planners to "plan more." Ms. Taylor reiterated that she wanted more information and follow-up. She thought staff was sometimes evasive when asked for information. She opined that policy was sometimes decided by the executive managers. She thought management had decided to almost eliminate Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) without consulting the council. She stressed that it was up to the council to make policy. Ms. Nathanson hoped the City Manager would continue to inform the City Council and the Mayor on the strategic issues identified the previous September. She said in a time of declining resources relative to core services it was important to define what was essential. She suggested that, as new projects were identified, it was important to provide direction as to what should be cut or placed at the bottom of the list. Ms. Bettman conveyed her feeling that sometimes the City Manager was advocating strenuously on behalf of the executive managers without taking into consideration that the council was attempting to incorporate community values. She thought he should be more of a liaison between the City Council, community, and the organization. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the proactive planning that had gone into the budget process. Mr. Pap6 conveyed his appreciation for Mr. Taylor's advice on issues. He wanted to hear strong recom- mendations for or against an option. Mr. Meisner agreed, but asked that the options for outcomes be fully presented. Mr. Kelly felt more community input should be more actively solicited. Mayor Torrey commented that it would be helpful to get a statement from legal counsel regarding the fire and emergency services at the airport. Mr. Taylor responded that it was not simple. City Attorney Glenn Klein said information could be provided, but a lot was dependent upon the particular issue. He stated that it was due in part to what was in the contract and the collective bargaining on this. Mr. Taylor noted that a legal opinion had yet to be produced on some of the council/staff issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman commented that policy issues were up for discussion so it would be good to have a clear idea ofbargainable issues. Mr. Kelly suggested that there may be examples of similar situations in other communities. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue was forbearance. He said the issue brought before the council had grown out of a bargaining session wherein it had been one of several options. He repeated that he would have preferred not to have the council weigh in on an item until it had been resolved at the bargaining table. Mr. Meisner reiterated that the council had felt brought into it by a line item on the proposed budget that caused the Budget Committee to address it. Mr. Taylor said, in retrospect, he should have done this a different way. Mr. Meisner noted that staff had come before the council in the previous year to ask if janitorial services at the Library should be outsourced. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M.'2OO41Central Services DepartmentlCity CouncillccO40526rnl.docl MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 2004 Page 5 Work Session ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 9, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Solomon participated via telephone hook-up. A. WORK SESSION: Prioritizing and Allocating State and Federal Transportation Funds City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, reporting that Public Works staff was present to discuss the prioritization and allocation of State and Federal transportation funds. Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided a PowerPoint presentation on the topic, focusing his remarks on State funds allocated through the Oregon Transportation Commission through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process, and the federal funds allocated by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPa) process. Mr. Corey briefly noted the sources of revenue for road projects. He described the STIP as Oregon's four- year transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He reviewed the various bodies and agencies that were involved in the review of the STIP, which at the local level included the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC), a federally mandated staff committee, and the MPC. The local MPa is the body responsible for overseeing regional transportation planning and MPC is responsible for the allocation of Surface Transpor- tation Plan - Urban (STP-U) funds and for providing policy guidance to the MPa. Mr. Corey briefly noted the planning documents that drove project nominations for funding, including the local CIP, the capital budget, and refinement plans. At the regional level, those documents included TransPlan, the STIP, the MTIP, and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Mr. Corey called the council's attention to a flowchart illustrating the STIP review and adoption process. Mr. Corey reviewed the STP-U process. He briefly noted the make-up of the MPC, which included representation from Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, Coburg, Lane Transit District, and the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District. Mr. Corey called the council's attention to a spreadsheet entitled STP-U Fund Allocation by g4PCfor Fisca! Years 2004-06, which contained a list of projects by category. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman commended the staff presentation. She explained that she had requested the work session because of her concern that there was no opportunity for council review of the funding priorities. She noted that the Lane Board of County Commissioners acted as the local Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) and made the final decisions on the STIP. She emphasized the complexity of the process and maintained that currently, because of that complexity, there was no way for a citizen to weigh in on those funding priorities except through their own council. Ms. Bettman further noted that although the council voted to prioritize maintenance and preservation projects for any available flexible funds, the STP-U funding was flexible money but the MPC had not directed all of the funding to preservation and maintenance. In part, she said, that was because any single jurisdiction represented at the MPC had veto power over any motion considered by the MPC. That gave other jurisdictions authority over the money to be spent within the Eugene city limits. She further expressed concern about what she believed was the inequity of the MPC's composition, which included two represen- tatives for each jurisdiction in spite of the population differences between Springfield and Eugene, and in spite of the fact the Lane Transit District Board of Directors was appointed and not elected. Mr. Kelly said that the council did not have the opportunity to consider the metropolitan STIP priorities in the same way that the Springfield City Council did. He advocated for such an opportunity for the council to review the staff-generated project list given the dollars that were involved. Mr. Kelly also expressed concern about the complexity of the process and the many acronyms employed and expressed a wish there was a more transparent funding process. He encouraged staff to think about ways to accomplish that. Mr. Pap~ said it appeared from the project list that a considerable amount of money was directed toward preservation. Ms. Bettman said most were bicycle projects. Mr. Pap~ said that better than half the dollars appeared to be going toward preservation. Mr. Corey said that several road preservation projects were not funded. In terms of increasing the efficiency and transparency of the project, Mr. Pap~ suggested the region consider forming an ACT, and asked why that had not been considered. Mayor Torrey deferred that question for a later response. Mr. Meisner asked how Ms. Bettman's concerns about representation could be addressed. Mr. Carlson said it would require a change to the MPC's bylaws and the concurrence of the parties to the agreement to change the committee's representation. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the makeup of the MPC in terms of transportation funding. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the MPC was already constituted in several different ways with different representation to address different metropolitan planning and transportation functions. Mr. Meisner asked if the parties to the MPC had veto power over bylaw changes. Mr. Carlson said yes. There must be one affirmative vote from each of the three general purpose govern- ments for a motion to change the bylaws to pass. He termed the current structure a delicate balance of power between the three main purpose governments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Meisner expressed hope the MPC would consider the issue of changes to the representation of the committee for transportation funding decisions. Ms. Taylor said that the reason the region had no ACT was because past MPC members had been very opposed to establishing one. She believed the region was the only one in Oregon which lacked an ACT. She concurred with Ms. Bettman's concern that Eugene did not have an opportunity to review projects prior to their being proposed for inclusion in the STIP. Mayor Torrey said the Portland metropolitan area and a region in eastern Oregon did not have ACTs. He said the Lane Board of County Commissioners did not want an ACT, and until it did, there would be no ACT. With regard to the veto situation, he concurred with the summary provided by Mr. Carlson. He said the local area needed a group that worked together for the general good of the local transportation system. He believed it was in the interest of all for the partners to work together to make the system work better so the veto situation did not arise. He suggested that could be accomplished by improved communication between the parties could involved could reach a consensus. Mayor Torrey said he recently attended a Local Officials Advisory Committee meeting in Salem where committee members discussed the potential of making Highway 126 an express freight way at some time in the future, which raised a concern about %BA" and ~UBA" designations on that highway from 1-5 to Florence. He asked Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments to provide him with information about what those acronyms meant. He added that the designation of that highway, if it occurred, would have tremendous implications for the local transportation system. Ms. Nathanson believed the council was talking about both a decision system and a transportation system. She pointed out that while Springfield had veto power over Eugene in theory, the opposite was also true. In regard to the decision system, she said that how representatives to the MPC decided to vote was either in accordance with the direction of their governing body or their personal convictions. She said it appeared there was frustration with the decision system, but changes to the system would have impacts to the transportation system. She suggested that at worse, a jurisdiction could promote and construct a roadway that ended at the city limit. Ms. Nathanson believed the issue was not only who got what dollars, but about constructing a system that made sense that worked to move people around the metropolitan area. Ms. Nathanson said the system needed to be simplified and made easier to understand while ensuring no jurisdiction makes a decision that was detrimental to the community as a whole. For that reason, she thought the other jurisdictions should be able to offer comment on Eugene's priorities, and vice versa. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that all project lists or funding alloca- tions for projects within the city of Eugene or the Eugene urban growth boundary (UGB) generated through the TPC for MPC/MPO approval shall first be reviewed and approved by the Eugene City Council before the TPC recommendations are re- viewed for approval by the MPC/MPO, including review of regional projects in which the City is a stakeholder. Ms. Bettman said while it was true the council had approved the many documents that informed the list, she pointed out those documents included many more projects than would be built, and they were malleable and could be quickly amended. Citing the courthouse area projects as an example, Ms. Bettman said sometimes projects were not expected and the process must be sufficiently flexible to ensure those projects could be MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 3 Work Session considered for funding. She wanted to create a process where the council had a say in where the priorities were placed. That was consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions. The MPO coordinated its activities based on the priorities of the jurisdictions, and she wanted to be able to provide input on the priorities in a timely way. Mr. Meisner advocated for the visual display of motions offered to the body. He indicated support for the motion. Mr. Kelly also supported the motion. He agreed with the comments made by Ms. Bettman. He thought the motion improved the process. Ms. Taylor also supported the motion. She thought the council could make time for the needed review. Mr. Pap~ questioned the inclusion of the reference to projects in which Eugene was a stakeholder as it seemed very broad to him. He suggested that Eugene was a stakeholder in everything that occurred in the community. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Corey that the Springfield council reviewed the project list but under its operating agreements, it did not take action on the list. Ms. Nathanson asked what criteria made the City a stakeholder in a project. She asked if the intent of the motion was that the City Council would review and approve the project list. Ms. Bettman said yes. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Corey for the presentation. She asked if the review meant those projects were %et in stone," and how it affected the council's ability to reallocate funding %n the fly." Ms. Solomon said while she was inclined to support the motion, it had a certain element of micromanaging and seemed to duplicate what the MPC already did, adding more complexity to a process the council wanted to make more simple. Mayor Torrey was also was concerned about overreaching. He did not want to take away the City's MPC representatives' ability to negotiate and engage in give-and-take at MPC meetings. He supported the original intent of the motion as he had viewed it earlier in the week, but was concerned by the added language. He did not want MPC representatives to be bound by a list. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly thought the council's concerns were addressed by the motion. He said the review would be limited to Eugene projects. That review would inform the MPC representatives of the council's position. Mr. Kelly said the MPC representatives might not to choose to follow the direction of the council. In regard to the added phrase, he emphasized the council would only be doing a review. In light of the limited dollars for transportation funding, it made sense for the Eugene council to have an opportunity to point out imbalances in regional funding or to identify projects outside the city limits that might negatively impact Eugene. Regarding Ms. Solomon's concerns about the council's ability to change things %n the fly," he said that because the council had the need to make such changes, he found value in the motion. It did not prevent change, but merely meant the list would merely return to the council for more discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 4 Work Session City Manager Taylor interpreted the motion as directing the staff to return to the council with a project list that the council must review and approve. Mr. Kelly concurred that was the case for projects within Eugene's jurisdiction. City Manager Taylor determined that Mr. Kelly envisioned the project list being reviewed perhaps once or twice yearly by the council. Ms. Taylor said the council's review was merely a chance for discussion before the MPC discussed the list, and it could lead to improvements in the final product. No power was removed from the MPC. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's comments. She said staff had much discretion in prioritizing the project list, and the review gave the council the opportunity to review the list and possibly veto projects depending on the needs of the community. She said the intent of the motion before the body was identical to the motion she had sent out earlier via e-mail, but was redrafled by legal counsel to be more explicit. She did not expect the council to be making many changes, but believed the changes in the process made the council more accountable over the long-term. City Attorney Jerome Lidz apologized if his motion had created confusion. He asked if the council would review and comment on the list or review and approve the list. Mayor Torrey interpreted the motion as stipulating the council would review and approve Eugene projects. He said the review would provide a statement of the council's position to the City's MPC representatives, who would then attempt to represent that position at the MPC. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Schwetz described the Springfield review process. Mr. Pap6 continued to be concerned about the impact of the motion as it applied to the City's veto power at the MPC. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Update on 1998 Parks and Open Space Bond Measure and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan The council was joined by Andrea Riner of the Parks and Open Space Division, who provided an update on the implementation of the 1998 parks and open space bond measure and an update on the current compre- hensive planning process, which was nearing its end. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Nathanson, the chair of the Mayor's Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee, said the council was aware of the importance of parks and open spaces to the community but less sure about the funding of new parks amenities. The City needed to determine what it could afford, and the advisory committee would discuss funding strategies after August 2004. There was still much to be done to reconcile the demand with the funding. Ms. Nathanson noted the City was still implementing the 1998 bond and had about two more years of projects to complete. The taxpayers would be paying off that bond for 14 more years. Systems development charge funds had been accumulating and would also be spent on parks projects. Many ideas for new facilities had been suggested to the committee but they had not yet been prioritized; that effort would begin at the next committee meeting. The committee must prioritize what needed to happen, and where, as money became available. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Nathanson reminded the council that when it reviewed potential bond projects, a major bond measure for parks was projected for 2006. She noted the committee's support for a 2004 bond measure as expressed in an April 2004 motion, and reported that decision was affirmed by approximately half the committee at the last meeting. About half the committee thought the measure was premature. She noted the inclusion of a letter to the council from the committee in the packet. Ms. Nathanson asked about the City's ability to survey voters about the issue. City Manager Taylor indicated a survey regarding parks and open spaces, as well as the civic visioning exercise, was in process. Ms. Taylor said property acquisition for parks was her top priority. She asked why it took so long to develop Milton Park and suggested the neighbors be updated on the topic. She also questioned the tree cutting in the park. Ms. Taylor asked about the status of projects in Amazon Park. Ms. Riner indicated that a variety of projects, including both sports fields and natural areas, were contemplated. She said improvements to the dog parks, trails, and multi-purpose field were proposed. Ms. Taylor asked if the council still had the ability to influence the design. City Manager Taylor said no. Mr. Meisner was pleased to see that the advisory committee was discussing maintenance and operations. He asked if that discussion was focused on new acquisitions alone, because if that was the case, he was concerned. He noted the City's past shift of the costs of parks maintenance onto the Stormwater Fund, which he did not think appropriate. He hoped the committee did a comprehensive review of all maintenance and preservation funding needs and discussed sources of funding. With regard to the time it was taking to complete Milton Park, Mr. Meisner suggested that the City consider increasing its parks planning staff either through contract or by hiring temporary employees to implement new projects. He said residents of the Santa Clara area and those who paid the parks SDC and bonds were frustrated by the delay in the planning process. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Riner that the City had compared its facilities to other Northwest cities and Oregon communities and it appeared it was slightly above average. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could be flexible with regard to the standards for neighborhood parks. He said he received requests for restrooms in Oakmont Park, and asked if the City could have an enhanced neighborhood park category. Ms. Riner said that the City often had to forget about the standards and consider situations on a case-by case basis. She said because of its location near a commercial center and was new, Oakmont Park was getting a different kind of use than neighborhood parks normally do. Staff would be evaluating that question in the future. Mr. Pap~ requested a comparison of what the community had built and purchased as a result of the 1998 bond as opposed to what it had before the bond's implementation. Mr. Pap~ commended the City's planning for Amazon Park. Mr. Kelly shared Mr. Meisner's concern regarding the maintenance issue. While he appreciated the advisory committee's comments about the possibility of employing serial levies for maintenance, he did not support that approach and wished to move away from it. Mr. Kelly advocated for the council to hold a general discussion of financial reform in January 2005. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly liked the geographic and facility/program balance envisioned by the advisory committee. Mr. Kelly was pleased to hear about the survey. He was concerned about moving forward with a 2004 bond when the last bond was still being paid, but was willing to consider the topic if the community supported it. Ms. Bettman said she frequently heard complaints from constituents that parks were being overdeveloped, which increased maintenance costs. She requested a breakdown of dedicated uses, such as dog parks, parking, and sports facilities. Ms. Riner provided a breakdown that indicated 78 percent of the City's park land was being managed as natural area. Developed acreage included parking, play areas, and sports fields. Ms. Bettman asked if the advisory committee had considered increasing park land in a low-maintenance model. She pointed out that restrooms increased maintenance costs and they could be a nuisance in some cases, increasing public safety costs. Referring to the information provided to the council regarding the bond measure, Ms. Bettman requested a breakdown per item cost rather than subtotals. Ms. Bettman was surprised to see so many new neighborhood parks in areas that were newly developed as she assumed those were to be paid by SDCs. Mayor Torrey requested an update on the regional park contemplated at the edge of the community in north Eugene. Mayor Torrey said the City was losing playing fields as schools were closed and new schools were developed. There were no replacement properties for those fields. With regard to sports field maintenance, he suggested the City contact School District 4J and request its help in maintaining sports fields. The motion adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 7 Work Session